BX 


175® 


.V4 




Copy 


i 




Qass_HX\75p.- -■ 
Book ,.A£4= ■ 



THE 

RULE 

OF 



CATHOLIC FAITH. 



r 




* > 



THE 



RULE 

'fair c/s": 
CATHOLIC F 



^6 



OR, THE 



llrtiutpldsi anli &ortrtit*0 

OF THE 

CATHOLIC CHURCH, 

DISCRIMINATED FROM THE bPlNlONS OF THE SCHOOLS, 



AND FROM 



POPULAR ERRORS AND MIS-STATEMENTS. 

\/ - 

TRANSLATED BY THE 



REV. J. WATERWORTH, M. A 




BIRMINGHAM : 

Printed and Published by R. P. Stone, 5, Cherry Street, 

BOOKER, AND KEATING AND BROWN, LONDON; ROCKLIFFE AND DUCKWORTH, LIVERPOOL ; 

WILLIAMS, CHELTENHAM ; SCULLY, DUBLIN ; LYNCH, MANCHESTER J AND BRIDCEN, 

WOLVERHAMPTON J AND SOLD BY ALL OTHER BOOKSELLERS. 



1833. 

7r 



TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 



The authority of the following treatise of Veron is 
well-known, and universally acknowledged. The 
Translation is from the Latin edition of the work, 
which is much more complete and satisfactory, than 
the original French, as it first came from the pen of 
the Author. Of the latter, a Translation has already 
appeared in our language, printed at Paris, in 1660, 
with only the initials of the Translator's name, which, 
I have reason to believe, was Edward Sheldon, But 
there is such a dissimilarity between the two works, 
that they may almost be considered as two distinct 
publications. The edition, which I have followed, 
is that which Hooke has appended to his Treatise on 
the Church. 

The object of the work is to draw a distinct line 
between the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and 
the opinions advanced by Catholic Theologians, on 
the erroneous tenets ascribed to us by writers of o- 
ther persuasions. This the Author executes in a 
masterly manner. His plan is simple, but must, I 
think, prove highly satisfactory to any one, who sin- 
cerely wishes to know the real tenets of our Church. 

If this Translation tend in any degree to weaken, 
or remove prejudice, or to correct mis-statements,— 



11. 

much, if not the whole of the merit is due to Lord 
Dormer, without whose assistance, this Translation 
would, probably, never have seen the light, I am 
aware, that, in a work of this kind, which is replete 
with quotations from the writings of the schoolmen, 
which it demands no ordinary study to comprehend, 
many errors, or inaccuracies may have crept into the 
Translation, I shall, therefore, deem it a favor to 
have them fairly stated. 



CON T E NT S 



CHAP. I. 

Catholic Rule of Faith .. .. .. .. .. ..1 

Explanation of the foregoing Rule . . . . . , . . . . S 

Consequences to be drawn from the above Rule . . . . . . . . 4 

Other Doctrines not articles of Catholic Faith, because not revealed, or not pro- 
posed by the Church, or because both these conditions are wanting .. 11 

CHAP. II. 



Articles of Faith, on particular points of controversy, distinguished 

trines not taught by the Catholic Church 
On the merit of good works — grace — and eternal glory. . 
On Justification 
On Satisfaction 
On Indulgences 
On Purgatory, and suffrages for the dead . . . . 

On the Obligation of Human Laws, as binding the conscience 

On the Invocation of the Saints 

On Images . . . . . . . . .^ 

On the relics of the Saints — and of the respect to be shewn them 
On the respect and honor due to the Saints 
On the presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist 
On Transubstantiation . . . . 

On the adoration of the Eucharist . . . . . . 

On the Sacrifice of the Mass . . . . . . 

On the Pope— his primacy, and authority 

On the Jud?e of Controversies .. ... 



dshed from Doc- 




.. 


26 


.. 


28 


.. 


36 


.. 


39 


. . 


49 


.. 


66 


• • 


69 


.. 


81 


.. 


S6 


.. 


93 


.. 


96 


• i • • 


97 


. . 


106 


.. 


114 




124 




132 


• • •• 


142 



THE 

CATHOLIC 



RULE OF FAITH. 



CHAP. I. 



§1- 

RULE OF FAITH. 

That, and that only, is an Article of Catholic Faith, which 
has been revealed in the word of God, and proposed, by the 
Catholic Church, to all her children, as necessary to be be- 
lieved with divine faith. Whether a doctrine be proposed by 
a General Council, and confirmed by its definitive decree ; or 
rest on the universal agreement of the faithful, its authority 
is the same. 

The above rule comprises two parts ; the first requiring 
that a doctrine, to be received as an Article of Faith, be re- 
vealed by Almighty God, — for, Faith, says St. Paul, (Rom. 
x. 17) cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ; 
— and the second, that it be taught by the Church, either in 
her General Councils, by an express and definitive decree : or 
practically confirmed by the unanimous assent of the pastors 
of the Church, and the faithful. 

This, in fact, is clearly implied by the words " Catholic 
Faith : " — for, by divine faith, is understood, the belief of any 
doctrine on account of the divine authority Hmt has revealed 
it: since every act of divine faith resolves itself, in the last 
analysis, into the authority and veracity of God. Rut the 
doctrines of Christianity are proposed to our belief, either 
by those whom Christ commissioned to that office, the pas- 
tors of the church assembled in a General Council, or are 
received in virtue of the manifest agreement of the whole 
body of the faithful. There can be no obligation, at least 
for the faithful as a body, to believe any doctrine that is not 
based on this evidence, and proposed in this manner. 

B 



To prevent being misunderstood, I shall call doctrines of 
Ihis class, articles ot Catholic Faith. I substitute the word 
Catholic for the more usual term divine faith, because many 
writers have applied the latter to debatable doctrines, to 
doctrines which some Theologians assert, and others deny are 
necessary to be believed. The very existence of such a dispute, 
shews, that even they who most strenuously contend, that 
the doctrines in question are to be believed, on the authority 
of God, do not use the phrase in its strict sense ; since those 
who refuse to receive them as articles of faith, are not there- 
by considered as Heretics, deprived of the sacraments, or 
separated from the communion of the church. It is the 
intention of the present pages to enquire, what doctrines 
are articles of Catholic Faith, strictly so called; to confine 
the queston to that Faith of which St. Paul says, with the 
heart, we believe unto justice ; but with the mouth, confes- 
sion is made unto salvation. — (Rom. x. 10.) I shall treat 
in a word, of that faith, the profession of which constitutes 
us members of the one fold, and is required from all who 
abandon their errors, which alone is professed by the church 
in her creeds, and must be subscribed alike by the Catholic, 
and the convert to Catholicity. This is the faith which 
with the heart we believe, and with the mouth confess ; from 
which are excluded all controverted questions, leaving these 
to be defended, or impugned by Theologians, and the schools. 

The above rule and principles are laid down, and acted 
upon by all our councils, by the fathers of the church, 
and by the whole body of Theologians. Accordingly, those 
only have been, and are still considered Heretics, who 
have chosen to hold opinions, on points of this vital charac- 
ter, opposed to the belief clearly embraced by the agreement 
of the Universal Church, or the decrees of her General Coun- 
cils. Such persons condemn themselves by preferring their 
own private opinion and judgment, to that of the Universal 
Church. 



§2. 

EXPLANATION OF THE FOKEGOING RULE. 

For any doctrine to be an article of Catholic Faith, two 
things are conjointly necessary : — first, that the doctrine be 
revealed by Almighty God, by the mouth of his prophets 
or apostles, or contained in the inspired writings that form 
the canon of scripture ; and, secondly, that it be proposed to 
the belief of the faithful by the church. A doctrine invested 
with these two conditions must be believed with divine, and 
Catholic faith. But it no longer belongs to this heavenly 
deposit, if either of these conditions fail ; — namely, if it have 
not been revealed, or not been propounded by the church. 
The second condition, however, presupposes the first ;— 
for, as Christ promised his church the assistance of his 
Holy Spirit to teach her, and lead her into all truth, it is impos- 
sible, — unless, as they cannot, these promises fail, — that this 
heavenly guided church can ever propose any thing as re- 
vealed, which has really not been so. However, a doctrine, 
although actually revealed by the Almighty, and contained, 
butin^an obscure manner, in the holy scriptures, may, as 
yet, not have been proposed by the church. In this case, 
though something has been revealed, still, we require an 
interpreter to explain the precise meaning of the revelation ; 
and, as the church has not hitherto declared the sense of 
the inspired words, or unfolded her stores of tradition, no- 
thing can be said to be positively defined on the subject. 
Various and conflicting opinions may be advanced ; but 
until the church has spoken, none of these opinions have any 
claim to be considered as a part of Catholic faith. It is 
upon this principle that fresh decrees on doctrinal points, 
have been made by our General Councils, and received by 
the Universal Church :— for instance, the Council of Nice 
defined that baptism, although administered by a heretic, or 
a person not a member of the true church, was valid, and 
ought not to be repeated. On this controversy, St. Austin 
observes ;* that as " this question appeared doubtful to the 
bishops of the last century, and opposite opinions were main- 

* S. Aug. Lib. 1. contra Oreseoa. cap. 32. Tom. 7, p. 168, col. il. 



4 

tained ; though without causing any breach of unity, it was 
resolved (at the Council of Nice, can. 8) that our present 
practice should alone be followed, throughout the Catholic 
Church." 

§3. 

CONSEQUENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THE ABOVE RULE. 

1. As nothing is an article of Catholic Faith, which has 
not been revealed, and communicated to us by the prophets, 
or apostles, or canonical writers, it 'follows that no revelation 
made to any saint, since the time of the apostles, can be an 
article of our faith, though ascribed to an Ambrose, or a 
Cyprian, or to any other servant of God however holy, or 
however near to the apostolic age, or however modern. 
Many revelations are, indeed, recorded in the lives of the 
saints, who are honoured by the church ; as in those of Saint 
Catharine of Sienna, St. Bridget, &c. ; and some have even 
received the sanction of General Councils ;* but, respectable 
as is such an authority, these visions, and spiritual commu- 
nications do not, on that account, challenge our belief as 
articles of faith. And the reason is, that these revelations 
were not made, either to the prophets, or apostles, or cano- 
nical writers. The faith, consequently, with which they can 
be received is merely human, since we acknowledge no di- 
vine authority in the writers that relate them. Our belief 
in these revelations, is, therefore, weak or firm, doubtful or 
certain, according to the weight of evidence in their favor, — 
proportioned, in a word, to the credibility of the vouchers. 
This is frequently low indeed, and, by examining the cir- 
cumstances that are said to have accompanied these revela- 
tions, &c, these revelations are often found deserving of lit- 
tle or no credit. Yet, surely, if we believe profane historians, 
such as Suetonius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, &c, sound 
criticism requires us to yield an equal, or rather a firmer 
assent, to the relations of writers of greater weight, and au- 
thority. 

2. No doctrine, delivered since the time of the apostles, 
can be an article of our Faith, though even miracles have 

* Vid. second Council of Nice, Labb. Tom, 7, pp. 266, 267, &c. 



been performed to confirm it ; nor is it an article of our Faith 
that any of these miracles are really genuine. This is true, 
however respectable may be the authors that record them. 
Thus, though many miracles are related by St. Austin,* St. 
Gregory, and other writers of equal authority, as having 
been actually performed before their own eyes ; and though 
others are reported in the Bulls of Canonization published 
by the Bishop of Rome ; whilst some are not only related, 
but are declared authentic by General Councils, — as in the 
second Council of Nice ; still they do not form any part of 
Catholic Faith. And this for the reasons assigned in the 
first corollary ; — these miracles were not performed, nor re- 
lated by prophets or apostles, and, consequently they cannot 
form an article of Catholic Faith, nor can any such article 
be built upon them. 

The lives of the saints are, indeed, full of miraculous 
relations, some evidently false, and others deserving of little 
credit. We have many instances of the first kind, in the lives 
written by Jacobus a Voragine, and Metaphrast, especially in 
their accounts of St. George, St. Ursula, &c. Bellarmin,f 
and Baronius,J both make the same observation. Still, after 
all proper deductions have been made, we shall find, if we 
apply to them the ordinary rules of criticism, that, almost 
all, or, at least, the far greater part of the miracles ascribed to 
the saints must be pronounced genuine. For if, as has been 
already observed, it would be considered rash, and' foolishly 
sceptical to refuse to believe the accounts left us by Sueto- 
nius, &c. and to deny that the battles, which he describes, 
were ever fought, or that his facts are true ; surely it would 
be an equal, if not a greater, act of folly, to reject, at once, 
as false and ridiculous, all the miracles recorded by writers 
of the most acknowledged veracity and greatest weight, — 
some of whom, and, amongst these, St. Austin, declare, that 
they were eye-witnesses to many of the miracles, which they 
relate. But, of course, we believe these miracles with a 
merely human faith, nor do we pretend to rest our belief 

* S. Aug. De civitate Dei Lib. 22, cap. 8, p. 296. Tom. 5. 

t Bellarm. de Scriptor. Eccles. in Metaphr. pag. 266. 

% Baron, in Martyrol. ad eorum festa. 



in any revealed truth upon them, nor is any doctrine of Ca- 
tholic Faith believed on their authority. It cannot, how- 
ever, be denied, that many doctrines have unquestionably 
been confirmed by them'; and they may thus, in some, though 
in a very modified sense, be said to bring with them a revel- 
ation from heaven. St. Paul (Epis. Hebr. ii 3,4) argues on 
this principle, " How shall we escape/' says he, "if we neg- 
lect so great salvation ? Which having begun to be declared 
by the Lord, was confirmed unto us, by them that heard him. 
God also bearing them witness by signs, and wonders, and 
divers miracles, and distributions of the Holy Ghost, accor- 
ding to his own will." And St. Mark also, (xvi. 20) " But 
they, going forth, preached everywhere : the Lord working 
withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed." 
In this sense a miracle may be said to be the voice and word 
of God ; but, it is impossible for God to lie, (Hebr. vi. 18) in 
whatever manner he is pleased to communicate his will to 
man. So that the evidence in favour of a doctrine confirm- 
ed by miracles, subsequently to the time of the apostles, is 
proportioned to the degree of credibility due to the evidence, 
on which those miracles rest. This, as usual, is exceedingly 
various ; — at one time amounting to certainty, at another to 
probability, and, sometimes, not even to this ; according to 
the character of the relators, and their means of information. 
It is deserving of being again noticed, that some of these wri- 
ters were themselves eye-witnesses, — and witnesses of no 
ordinary character, — as an Austin, a Gregory, &c. whilst 
some miracles are also related by them on the testimony of 
others. To illustrate what has been said by an example. It 
is an article of Catholic Faith, that the relics of the saints 
are deserving of respect. The truth of this doctrine is most 
powerfully confirmed by the undeniable miracles related by 
St. Austin, * as having been performed by the relics of St. 
Stephen, to which he himself was an eye-witness ; those re- 
corded by him and St. Gregory, as having been related to 
them by others, are of less force, but still furnish a probable 
argument ; whilst, as many of the miracles related by Meta- 
phrast, and De Voragine are deserving "of little credit, they 

* S. Aug 1. c. 






furnish little or no evidence in confirmation of any doctrine. 
Baronius * passes the following just censure on these two 
last writers. " We have the acts of St. George edited by 
Metaphrast, and I am far from approving or receiving the 
legend about Athanasius, the magician. I have also looked 
into the legends of the saints by Jacobus de Voragine, and 
find much in them to correct." Bellarmin + makes a similar 
remark, at least on Metaphrast. " Metaphrast has left us 
the lives of many saints, which he has disfigured with nume- 
rous fictions, and stories drawn purely from his own fancy. 
He relates numerous miracles, and those, too, of a most ex- 
traordinary kind, as having happened at the destruction of 
Pagan temples and idols, of which we find not one word in 
any old writer." But, even granting that the miracles are 
proved to be clearly genuine, no article of faith can be 
grounded on them, since they were not performed, nor is the 
account of them transmittedto us, by the inspired prophets and 
apostles. Moreover they are not, generally at least, proposed 
and received by the Universal Church, to which alone Christ 
promised immunity from error. Accordingly, our belief in 
them is purely human, and proportioned to the credibility' and 
character of the writers, who record them, who were all fal- 
lible men. This belief differs widely from that, which we 
yield to articles of Catholic Faith, and of which alone we 
are here treating. 

But what are we to call the assent yielded to a doctrine 
on the authority of these private revelations, as contradis- 
tinguished from those made to the prophets and apostles, 
and contained in the sacred writings ? Is it merely human, 
or may it not be divine, in as much as it seems to be elicited, 
and to rest on the authority of divine revelation, not indeed 
confirmed by the written or unwritten word of God, nor au- 
thoritatively proposed by the Universal Church ; but, certi- 
fied by human testimony, and the relation of fallible men ? 
This is a purely problematical question, and as such is a 
very different thing from the articles of our faith, which are 
now our only concern, But, if called on for an opinion, I 

* Baronius in Martyr. 23 Aprilis. pag. 171. col. 1, 
t Bellarm. de Scriptor. .Eccles. anno 850. p. 



8 



should say, that very probably such a belief is not divine, 
but purely human ; since it rests on, and resolves itself into, 
the purely human authority of a certain number of fallible 
writers. The whole evidence being purely human, the assent 
yielded does not even amount to what is called Theological 
Faith, and, consequently, is very far indeed from being a di- 
vine or Catholic Faith. 

3. No doctrine is an article of Catholic Faith, which is 
grounded on texts of scripture, which have been interpreted 
in various senses by the holy fathers, or, are still differently 
explained by our best, and most learned modern Theologians. 
For, in this case, both the elements which constitute the 
Catholic Rule of Faith, are wanting. First, it is not clear 
that the doctrine in question has been revealed; nor secondly, 
can any interpretation of the contested texts be said to be 
approved of by the Universal Church ; as is evident from 
the very variety of explanations supposed to exist. How- 
ever, although it be true, that when different opinions exist 
in the church as to the precise doctrine to be drawn from 
certain passages of scripture, no interpretation of these pas- 
sages can be called Catholic; still, it must be observed, 
that when the holy fathers, in their explanations of the 
sacred text, agree in deducing, and teaching one and the same 
doctrine, though from different passages of scripture, their 
unanimous consent on this point of doctrine, must not only 
be considered as expressive of the belief of the church, but 
also, as having its foundation in the revealed word of 
God, though not grounded on this or that particular passage. 

4. We do not admit as an article of Catholic Faith, any 
consequence, however certain, or however logically deduced 
from premises, one of which is of faith, and the other clear 
by the mere light of reason. There are two insuperable ob- 
jections against any doctrine of this character being classed 
among our articles of faith. The first is, that it has not been 
revealed, for, ''faith,' 3 says St. Paul, " cometh by hearing : 
and hearing, by the word of Christ." — ( Jiom. x. 17) but de- 
ductions, however clear they may seem, from scriptural 
truths ; are not mentioned in the sacred writings as a part 
of the word of God. But, as every such consequence is 
contained virtually in the premises, the deductions, from 



9 



scriptural propositions, of which we are speaking, though 
they cannot be considered as formal, or express articles of 
Catholic belief, virtually, at least, form a part of that sacred 
deposit. In a word, the principle only is an article of faith, 
and from it the mind deduces, as a necessary and clear con- 
sequence, a doctrine, which it receives, not indeed with a 
divine, but with a firm and unhesitating faith. The conse- 
quence drawn may be as evident and certain as any doctrine 
can possibly be supposed to be, still, much that is merely 
human goes to its formation, both in the necessary train of 
argument, — which is often mixed with something purely phi- 
losophical, — and in the comparison and reunion of the ideas 
contained in the premises, without which, it is obvious, no 
conclusion can be drawn. So that, considered as a whole, 
the process is far from being supernatural, and, consequent- 
ly, the doctrine elicited can, by no means, be called divine. 
In the schools, if the premises be both undeniable, a conse- 
quence deduced from them is called a theological conclusion ; 
if one or both of them, as is generally the case, be doubtful, 
it is called a problematical opinion ; but, if one of the pre- 
mises, or the form of argumentation be false and sophisti- 
cal, the deduction is, naturally, called falser Most of the 
scholastic opinions, which have, so long, divided and tortured 
the schoolmen, belong to this last class. It may be as well to 
notice, that there is a diversity of opinion both among Ca- 
tholic and Protestant writers, on the question, whether the- 
ological conclusions from scriptural propositions are articles 
of faith. Catholics, as well as Protestants, assert that they 
are ; others, of both parties, deny it as warmly. Vego and 
Melchior Canus, among Catholic writers, support the affirm- 
ative, but, as even Daill6 grants,* many theologians of the 
same faith defend the negative of the question. Some take a 
middle course, and distinguish between deductions from tic o 
scriptural premises, — and these they assert to be of faith, — 
and conclusions drawn from two premises, one of which on- 
ly is a scriptural proposition, and the other self-evident, and 
these, according to these writers, are not of faith. Vasquezf 
agrees with none of the above opinions, and proposes another 

* Daille in Fid. fund. part. 1. p. 28. f Vasquez, 1 p. d. 12. a. 8. c. 2. 

C 



10 

of his own. According to him, our assent to a theological 
conclusion considered as resulting, by the common laws of 
argument, from premises, one of which is revealed, and the 
other self-evident, is not an act of divine faith ; but, inasmuch 
as a conclusion, virtually divine, is clearly contained in such 
premises, though this is discovered, or rather proposed to the 
understanding by ratio-cination, our belief may be said to be 
an act of divine faith. This variety of opinion shews clearly 
that, amongst Catholics at least, it is, at most, only a proba- 
ble opinion that deductions from articles of faith, are also 
of faith. All are, consequently, agreed that they are not ar- 
ticles of Catholic faith ; and that no one, therefore, would be 
a Heretic, who should choose to deny that they form apart of 
the deposit of faith. To assert the contrary, would be to 
expose oneself to the charge of dangerous and presumptu- 
ous innovations in faith ; — we should ourselves incur the 
guilt of broaching new doctrines ; and by the very fact of 
condemning others, be deserving of the strongest condemna- 
tion, and the severest censures of the Church. It must, then, 
be laid down as a certain and undeniable position, that the- 
ological conclusions are not articles of Catholic faith. I have 
said that a similar difference of opinion is found amongst 
Protestant writers. Osiander, Chemniz, and, in fact, a 
great majority of the ablest Lutheran divines, do not receive 
them as articles of faith. Even Vedel* acknowledges this, 
though himself a strenuous supporter of the contrary opi- 
nion. His whole work, in fact, goes upon this principle. 
He is followed, or rather copied, by Daill6, and a few other 
Calvinists, although, in general, the Dissenting Churches 
agree with the Lutherans. There is not a word on the sub- 
ject in the Calvinistic confession of faith, so that the opinion 
of these writers cannot be considered as that of their church. 
Moreover, as they consider the Lutherans, who differ from 
them on this point, as brothers in faith, and the cause of re- 
formation, I cannot see clearly with what consistency these 
writers could lay this down as a fundamental principle of 
controversy. Surely the Calvinists, who adopt this princi- 
ple, and yet act as I have stated, cannot possibly expect 

* Vjedel. Rationale Theologicum. 



li 

that much security can be felt by their readers in the truth 
of doctrines built on so insecure a basis. 

There is, also, a second defect, which alone would suffice 
to hinder the opinion, that theological conclusions are arti- 
cles of faith, from ever being considered, by Catholics at 
least, as a necessary part of Catholic belief. This opinion 
has never been proposed to the belief of the Universal 
Church. This is granted on all hands:— as it is neither 
found in clear and express words in Scripture ; nor has it 
been taught by any General Council. It is, therefore, a 
question open to debate ; since, so long as a doctrine has 
not been propounded by a competent authority, no one is 
bound to receive it as divinely revealed. And, as far as o- 
ther dissenting churches are concerned, although some of 
their writers have chosen to call it a fundamental and essen- 
tial doctrine, there is no public, or authoritative decision, in 
any of their confessions of faith, to authorise, or give weight 
to their opinions. We are justified, at all events, in coming 
to this conclusion, that, this opinion is no article of Catholic 
faith. 

§4. 
Other doctrines not articles of Catholic faith, because not 

revealed, or not proposed by the Church, or because both 

these conditions are wanting. 
1. No doctrine is to be considered an article of Catholic 
faith, on the authority of Gratian's Decretal : that is to say, 
no opinion is to be received as of faith, merely because it is 
found in that Decretal. This observation deserves particu- 
lar attention, as Du Moulin, and other writers of the same 
stamp, have had the effrontery to assert, that whatever is 
contained in that Decretal is an article of our Faith. Their 
object was manifestly, merely to find something fresh to con- 
demn in the Catholic Church. But, surely, one religious is 
not the Universal Church ! Nor did Gregory XIII., or any 
other Pope, much less a General Council, in approving of 
this Decretal, ever declare that its contents were to be re- 
ceived as articles of Catholic faith. So far from this being 
the case, it is, really, no very difficult matter to detect mis- 
takes in it of no small importance, such as false quotations, 



12 

errors in chronology, &c. Almost at the outset of his work, 
we find him quoting from St. Isidore's " Books on Etymolo- 
gy," so little connexion has the matter before him with arti- 
cles of faith. We also meet, almost in the same place, with 
these titles to his sections: — What is civil law — what mili- 
tary, — and what is meant by the tribunitial laws ? " What 
has this to do with articles of faith ? 

2. No Decretals of the Roman Pontiffs, which form the 
body of Canon Law ; — as the Six Books of Decretals, the 
Clementines, Extravag antes, fyc ; — no Bulls issued, more re- 
cently than these Decretals, by the successors of St. Peter, 
are of sufficient authority to prove any doctrine an article of 
Catholic Faith. No doctrine is of faith because it happens 
to have been taught by the Pope in one of the above men- 
tioned works. The reason is clear. The Pope, in whatever 
character, or however solemnly he may give his opinion, even 
in scholastic phraseology, ex cathedra, is not the universal 
church, and, consequently, whatever may be his private opin- 
ion, and however declared, such opinion is not, on that ac- 
count, propounded by the Catholic Church as an article of 
her belief. And, observe, that this is so clearly acknow- 
ledged by all theologians, that any one that should presume to 
advance a contrary opinion, would be an innovator, and ex- 
pose himself to the censures of the Church, as a broacher of 
new doctrine. This may be shewn even from Bellarmin, 
where he cites the three opinions that have been advanced 
by Catholic writers, on the authority of doctrinal decisions 
emanating from the Pope. He says,* " The first opinion is, 
that the Pope, even speaking as the successor of St. Peter, 
or as Pope, may teach heresy, when he takes upon himself 
to define anything, without the concurrence of a General 
Council; and even bean actual and formal heretic. This, it is 
asserted, has really happened. Gerson, Almain, and several 
other French theologians have maintained this opinion, 
which was also defended by Alphonsus de Castro and Pope 
Adrian VI. All these writers placed the infallibility of the 
Church, in matters' of faith, not in the Pope, but in the Uni- 

* Bellarm. Lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. cap. 2. p. 209. Tom. 1. Colon. 
A grip. kit. 1628. 



13 

versal Church, or rather, in a General Council. A second 
opinion runs to the opposite extreme, and asserts, that the 
Pope can, under no circumstances, be a heretic, nor publicly 
advance an heretical opinion, even, though alone and unad- 
vised, he teach a particular doctrine. The third opinion 
takes a middle course, and teaches that, whether the Pope 
can be a heretic or not, he cannot, at least, in any case, pro- 
pose an heretical opinion, and direct it to be received by the 
Universal Church. This opinion is by far the most common, 
and is supported by the great body of Catholic writers, as 
by St. Thomas, Cajetan, &c. As the supporters of the first 
opinion are still tolerated by the church, they cannot, strictly 
speaking, be called heretics ; still the opinion seems clearly 
erroneous, and but little removed from actual heresy. The 
second opinion is probable, though not certain. The third 
is by far the most probable, and ought to be embraced by all 
Catholics." These are Bellarmin's own words, and I have 
given the passage entire, to shew how unjustly many persons 
are calumniated as heretics for asserting, that it is not of faith 
that the decisions of the Roman Pontiffs even ex-cathedra, 
when unsupported by a General Council, are articles of Ca- 
tholic faith. This, let it be observed, is clear from Bellar- 
min's words, and what is more, is the unanimous opinion of 
all Catholic divines. Bellarmin expressly acknowledges that 
"they cannot be called heretics." So far I agree with him ; 
but I cannot when he says "that the first seems an erroneous 
opinion, and but little removed from actual heresy." It is 
but just to notice that the word "seems," used by Bellarmin, 
in the above quotation, implies that he said this with a de- 
gree of doubt and hesitation. But this censure does not 
seem to all Catholics, at all called for, — to many of whom it 
rather seems rash and imprudent to pronounce an opinion 
erroneous, and nearly heretical, which has such names as 
Gerson, Almain, and Adrian in its favour. In fact, it is 
clear, from Bellarmin himself, that "it has never been defined 
by the church that the Pope is infallible, when unassisted by 
a General Council, nor that any doctrine advanced and pro- 
posed by him, is, in consequence of such proposal, an article 
of Catholic faith. All divines, consequently, are agreed, as 
Bellarmin allows, that Papal Infallibility is no doctrine of 



14 

the Catholic Church : — and this is all that I have asserted, 
and is certain beyond all controversy. It would have been 
well if all writers had taken time to form a more correct 
judgment on this subject. 

It is quite beyond the object of this present work to enter 
into any explanation of my own sentiments on the three 
opinions stated above. Although the third, without however, 
in the least, censuring the first, may be the one which I am 
most inclined to favour ; still, as my object is, by carefully 
separating what is of faith from what is not, to render the 
road to truth less difficult for those who have strayed from 
it, I shall abstain from an enquiry which might involve me in 
useless discussion. But, I wish it to be clearly understood, 
as many writers have not correct notions on this point, that 
we do not say that the doctrinal decisions of the Pope are 
not of faith , but merely, and I again repeat it, that they are 
not articles of Catholic Faith ; — in other words, the infalli- 
bility of the Pope is not one of those articles which all are 
bound to profess if they wish to continue, or to become 
Catholics ; or one, the contrary to which would be heretical, 
and separate, at once, him who should maintain it, from the 
communion of the Church, Still, undoubted as this is, all 
Catholic writers agree that the opinions of the Pope, though 
he may merely have been assisted by his private council, or 
have even simply expressed his private sentiment, in reply 
to questions from other prelates, are of great weight ; of 
greater when sanctioned by a provincial synod ; and of pa- 
ramount weight and importance when proposed ex-cathedra, 
either with the consent of his private, or of a provincial 
council. Indeed it would be highly rash to hold a different 
opinion from one sanctioned by this authority. 

I hope, that, in future, after this statement, certain writers 
will be more cautious in condemning others. These theolo- 
gians, in their eagerness to condemn others of heresy, have 
exposed themselves to the merited censures of the church by 
introducing the new and unheard of dogma, that the deci- 
sions of Sovereign Pontiffs, ex-cathedra, unsupported by a 
general council, are articles of Catholic Faith, and as such, 
are to be received by all Catholics under the grievous penalty 
of heresy. Such writers surely laboured under a mental 



15 



hallucinatiou ; — they must have fallen into error through 
their own wilful blindness ; — thus to denounce censures so 
hastily and unreasonably, is a proof that the mind and judg- 
ment were rather injured than in error. They fancied, ac- 
cordingly, that many writers said things of which they never 
even dreamed. But to return to the question, — namely, the 
authority of the Decretals which constitute the Canon Law. 
Why Bellarmin even does not hesitate to acknowledge that 
they contain many erroneous opinions ! For instance, when the 
centuriators of Magdeburg, in their life of Gregory III. ac- 
cuse that Pontiff of allowing a certain person to marry again, 
whose first wife was incapable, by disease, of rendering the 
marriage debt, — though such a permission, as Gratian had 
already observed, is contrary to the gospel, — Bellarmin gives 
this answer,* "It might, also, be said that the Pope erred, 
through ignorance, which we grant may happen when he does 
not positively define anything as an article of Catholic Faith, 
but merely states his own private opinion to another who 
has asked it, as Gregory seems to have done in the case be- 
fore us." Now let us apply this principle to the rest of the 
Decretals, and, it will be soon perceived that they cannot 
possibly have any claim to establish articles of Catholic 
Faith. When pressed by a difliculty, or an opinion drawn 
from this source, we have only to answer with Bellarmin, 
"that the Pope did not mean to propose the doctrine object- 
ed, as an article of Faith, but simply to state his own pri- 
vate opinion." This, it is obvious, is no ground for an arti- 
cle of Faith, much less of Catholic Faith. 

It may be as well to enter into a few details as to the 
nature of these Decretals. The greatest part of them are 
merely regulations to direct the sitting officer in the episco- 
pal court in his decisions ; there are also a variety of instruc- 
tions on the collation of benefices, as principles by which 
all disputes on this subject are to be settled. Now, what 
has all this to do with Faith ? Articles of Faith are evident- 
ly of a very different nature. Moreover, many, in fact, most 
of these decisions are answers to individuals, and not propos- 
ed to the Universal Church ; and it is granted, on all hands, 

* Bellarm. Lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. cap. 12. p. 219. col. 1. 



16 

that the Pope is liable to error in private answers of the a- 
bove character; and that such answers are not a sufficient 
ground on which to establish an article of Faith, much less 
of sufficient authority to establish an article of Catholic 
Faith. 

Of course, as the answers contained in these Decretals are 
numerous, they are naturally a fertile source of dispute. 
However, the general principle laid down above as to their 
authority, cuts ofF, at once, a multitude of difficulties, which 
have been collected by our adversaries from Gratian, the 
Decretals, Papal Bulls, &c. — in a word, from the whole body 
of Canon Law. These writers, by tacking together whatever 
seemed to make for their point, — by favouring us also with 
their own glosses, contrive to give these Decretals quite a 
contrary meaning, to what they were originally intended to 
convey. And this/ they triumphantly assert, is our faith, 
the faith of the Catholic Church ; and this they attack with 
all possible gravity. Volumes swell upon volumes, whilst 
Catholics are as busy, on their side, in composing as many in 
answer. But the method traced above is far more compendi- 
ous, and is a safe and valuable way of bringing back to the 
Catholic fold,those who have wandered from the trueChurch. 
It consists in these few words, — nothing of all this is matter of 
Catholic faith, nothing, accordingly, of all this is to be found 
in the professions of faith, which we propose to those, who 
return to the bosom of the Church. 

3. No decision of a Provincial Council, though the Pope 
preside at it, personally, or by his Legates, is an article of 
Catholic Faith. In fact, such Council is not the Universal 
Church, and, consequently, the doctrine proposed by it, is 
not, thereby, proposed by the Universal Church, and is not, 
consequently, an article of Catholic Faith. It would, how- 
ever, become such, if the opinion of the Church were clearly 
shewn, from proper sources, to have been pronounced in its 
favour ; as was the case with many decisions passed, in what 
are called, by St. Austin, the regionary councils, against the 
doctrines of Pelagius, and other heretics. We have an in- 
stance of this kind in the council of -Meelah,* in Numidia, 

* Tom. I. Condi, p. 630, T53, &¥. 



17 

held under Innocent I. The principle laid down in this third 
corollary, maybe proved from the passage of Bellarmin, 
quoted above, in which he gives the three opinions advanced 
by Catholic writers on Papal Infallibility. The reader 
would do well to consult the passage, and to read my obserr 
vations on it, 

However, as the authority, both of the Pope and of Pro- 
vincial Councils, is very great, their decisions are to be re- 
ceived with a corresponding respect. Nor is less attention 
due, to doctrines which have been clearly confirmed by mira- 
cles and revelations, of which I have treated above, provid- 
ed always, this supernatural agency can be proved by satis- 
factory evidence. 

4. Nor are all practices of the Church, even of the universal 
Church, a sufficient ground for an article of Catholic Faith, 
This is clear, since the second condition of the rule of Faith 
is wanting : — these practices do not propose a doctrine to be 
believed, but a custom to be observed. Nor, to justify the 
church in adopting a particular practice, is it at all neces-^ 
sary to be shewn that such practice is clearly good and com- 
mendable ; it is sufficient if it be probably such. Hence the 
church may make what alterations she pleases in these ob- 
servances, resting, as they do, on merely human and proba-r 
ble grounds. We are, of course justified in accommodating 
our practice to these changes, and even in embracing a quite 
contrary practice, provided it can be shewn to have as pro- 
bable evidence in its favour. The correctness of this princi- 
ple I will prove by an extract from Vasquez. This writer* 
first shews " that, from the very nature of the sacrifice of the 
Mass, and by divine institution, it cannot, and indeed never 
could, be offered up, for those who have not received the sa- 
crament of baptism. It, of course, made no difference, 
whether the unbaptized had been received as Catechumens, 
or were still purely Pagans or Jews. There was no difficul- 
ty, it must be observed, in offering up public prayers for 
them, as is still practised by the church.* He then objects 
against this doctrine, the practice once actually received in 
the church, as he clearly proves from the Roman Ordo,* of 

* Vasquez, 3. par. Disp. 227. cap. 3. f Ordo Rom. c. 20- 

D 



18 

offering up the holy sacrifice for Catechumens. To this he 
gives, among others, the following answer : — " But, after all, 
this solution might be given — The church has always approv- 
ed, both in her doctrine and practice, of certain and un- 
doubted opinions only, in every thing connected with the 
essence and substance of the Sacraments ; but, in matters 
purely accidental, and ceremonial, she has sometimes follow- 
ed, in her observances, an opinion, which, at best, was mere- 
ly probable, without proposing it, however, in any way, as 
an article of her faith. Hence mass, by the direction of the 
Pope, was, at one time, offered up for Catechumens, though 
this practice is now no longer tolerated. Jn fact, no public 
prayers even, are now prescribed to be said for them, except 
on Good Friday, on which day the sacrifice of the mass is 
not celebrated." He adds, a little later, that "we cannot be 
surprised, that the church, formerly embracing the opinion, 
which was then probable, that mass might be offered up for 
Catechumens, should have actually celebrated it for them, 
or, that she should now have abandoned that practice." To 
this may be added an excellent observation of Bellarmin.* — 
"The decrees of (general) councils do not stand in need of 
the approbation of the faithful, as they do not derive their 
authority and certainty from them ; but decrees on matters 
of discipline, unless received by the church, may be gradually 
modified, or even abrogated by a custom, at which the Pope 
tacitly connives, because such decrees are, from their very 
nature, liable to change ; and when the Pope is silent, though 
he knows that they have, for a long time not been observed, 
he is considered to have actually abrogated them. But de- 
crees of faith are immutable, and, once propounded, cannot 
possibly be nullified Though St. Austin's well-known prin- 
ciple, is most sound and just, that, " when the Universal 
Church has adopted any practice y it is the height of folly and 
madness to call in question the lawfulness of such practice y" 
still, it does not follow, as a necessary consequence from this 
principle, that the church, in embracing that practice, pro- 
pounds an article of faith to the belief of the faithful. It 
is enough for a practice to appear good, for her to adopt it, 

* B«ll&rm. Lib. 2. de Concil. cap. ) 7. p. 267. 



19 

and a merely probable opinion is a sufficient ground for ad- 
mitting it as good. Hence, as I before observed, the church 
is justified in altering even practices universally received. — 
These observances as they are merely recommended, or rath- 
er prescribed, may be changed ; — but articles of faith can 
never, under any circumstances vary, because truth is ever 
the same. 

5. Vasquez judiciously observes,* "that the doctrines 
taught by a General Council, in the chapters before the Ca- 
nons, must be received as articles of Catholic Faith, as may 
easily be collected from the words used before the Canons, 
at the end of every session. " Again,f "every thing doctrinal, 
proposed by a (general) council in the chapters found before 
the Canons, is of Catholic Faith. This is clear from the fol- 
lowing passage from the Council of Trent, J which belongs 
neither to the chapters nor canons, but is placed between 
them. As it is not enough, say the Fathers of Trent, to ex- 
plain what is the true faith, unless we, at the same time, shew 
and repudiate the contrary errors, it has appeared good to 
this Holy Synod, to subjoin the following canons, in order 
that, as all are already acquainted with the Catholic doctrine 
(from the exposition given in the chapter,) they may also 
know the heretical tenets which they are to avoid. We find 
a similar observation in the sixth session, immediately after 
the chapters, and before the regular canons. It seems expe- 
dient to this Holy Synod, to subjoin to this exposition of the 
Catholic doctrine on justification, the following canons, that 
all may know both what opinions to embrace, and what to 
avoid and fly. n The reason of this is, that the chapters, as 
well as the canons, contain propositions, made to the whole 
church, to be received or condemned. 

Vasquez adds in the same place, "although the church 
sometimes forbids certain questions to be agitated, on which 
she has not, as yet, passed a definitive and dogmatical de- 
cision ; it is merely in this sense, that no one is, thencefor- 
ward, justified in condemning or anyways censuring a parti- 
cular proposition; nor, on the other hand, in declaring it a 

* Vasquez. 1. 2. Disp. 200. cap. 6. 
f Vasquez. 3. part. Disput. 207. cap. 3 $ Trid. Sean*. 13. cop. 8. in ime. 



20 

safe or probable opinion. She has never, hitherto, however, 
attempted to excommunicate any one, however obstinate and 
positive, for defending a proposition ; unless she had at the 
same time, condemned that proposition as an error against 
faith, and denned the contrary doctrine to be an article of 
Catholic Faith ; which, to impugn obstinately, would consti- 
tute a person a heretic. An error is said to be maintained 
obstinately, when it is still defended after an express defini- 
tion of the church." I think it proper, also, to observe, with 
the same writer,* "that sometimes the church confirms its de- 
cisions by authorities and arguments, some of which appear 
not to have much connexion with the point : -though, as he 
justly asks, when the fathers assembled in council, declare 
that a particular doctrine has been for ages, and is still de- 
duced from a certain passage of scripture, who will be so 
rash as to say, that the ground taken, by these high authori- 
ties, is weak and insecure. 

From what has been said, we may come to this conclu- 
sion, that of the doctrines contained in the chapters, those 
and those only, are of faith, which are expressly defined ; 
or to use the language of the Canonists, only the dispositivum 
arresti, that is, only the doctrine which is the prime object 
of the chapter, or Canon, and not the proofs of that doctrine 
are faith. The reason is obvious: — the doctrine alone is 
proposed to our belief, and is all that is, strictly speaking, 
defined. There is no intention, whatever, of affixing a simi- 
lar authority on the motives, or proofs adduced. According- 
ly there are many things, even in General Councils, which 
are not articles of faith., 'Thus, for instance, we are not 
bound to believe what is merely mentioned incidentally; 
much less, the various observations made by the Prelates 
assembled, in delivering their opinions on the questions that 
came before them ; and still less what happened to fall from 
the Theologians in discussing and arguing the questions 
which it was proposed to define The general reasons for 
the above decisions is, that nothing of all this can be said to 
be defined, or propounded by the church. 

6. There is another observation, closely connected with 

* Vasquez. p. 3. Disp. 181. c. d. 



21 



the preceding, which T will give in Bellarmin's words.* 
* For a doctrine to be of faith, it must have been expressly 
defined, by the General Council, to be an article of Catholic 
Faith." Hence he observes, "those who deny that the Pope 
is above a General Council, are not, properly speaking, he- 
retics, although (and they are the Cardinal's own words) 
the last Council of Lateran, under Leo X. clearly and delibe- 
rately teaches that the Pope is above all Councils, and con- 
demns a decree to the contrary made by the Council of Ba- 
sil. " And he assigns as his reason for this assertion, "that it 
is doubtful whether the Council of Lateran defined this point 
expressly and definitively, as an article of Catholic Faith." 
Bellarmin also requires that the doctrine be defined concili- 
ariter, that is, after the manner, and according to the usages 
of other councils " Martin V." he observes.f " only con- 
firmed those decrees on questions of faith, which had been 
promulgated by the Council of Constance, after the manner 
of other councils ; that is, after the subject had undergone a 
cartful examination, such as had always been given by pre- 
ceding councils. Now, it is a matter of history that the de- 
cree in question, (passed at Constance, ascribing to a General 
Council an authority, derived immediately and directly from 
Christ, to which all are bound to submit, not even excepting 
the Pope) was made by the council without any examination 
whatever. Pope Martin, consequently, in confirming the 
decrees of this council, in matters of faith, which had been 
propounded after due deliberation, clearly meant his approv- 
al to be confined to the condemnation of the heretical tenets 
of Wickliff and Huss. 

7. Bellarmin, also, commenting on an opinion advanced 
by Pope Boniface VIII. that the clergy are exempt, both by 
divine and human laws, from the payment of taxes, observes, 
% "that Boniface in this, merely followed the common opinion 
of Canonists, and gave it as his own, but did not mean to 
define anything on the subject." In fact, his language is not 
such as he would have employed had he intended to decide 
this controverted question. He simply, and quite inciden- 

* Bellarra. Lib. 2. De Concil. cap. 17. pag. 267. 

f Bellarm. Lib. 2. De Concil. c. xix. p. 269. 

X Bellarm. Tom. I. Lib. 1. de Clerici6, cap. 28. p. 327. 



22 

tally states, that "as the clergy are exempt, by divine law, 
&c." Apply this principle to all opinions incidentally ad- 
vanced by General Councils, without any express or formal 
decree. 

8. The subject must also be capable of being the matter 
of a decree. Thus, according to this principle, though 
John XXII. according to Bellarmin, erred in teaching that in 
things consumed in the act of being used, such use involves 
dominion, still, he did not err, he observes, in a matter of 
faith, as this question does not, in any way, belong to the 
deposit of faith." Subjects of a similar character, such as 
questions of law, philosophy, &c. cannot be made matters of 
dogmatical decrees. 

9. The decree must be general, and addressed to the whole 
church. " We teach," says Bellarmin,* " that the Pope (or 
a General Council) cannot err on any point, which is direct- 
ed to be received by the Universal Church. There is no 
difficulty, however, in granting, that the Pope (or a General 
Council) may err, when the decision or judgment is addressed 
to individuals only, and not to the whole church." It is up- 
on this principle that this writer answers a difficulty taken 
from a permission granted by Innocent VIII. to the church 
of Norway, to celebrate Mass without wine. " The answer," 
he says, " is obvious ; — the Pope never issued a decree al- 
lowing the whole church to celebrate in this manner. His 
error, therefore, if it was one, was confined to a particular 
case and fact, and did not extend to anything like establish- 
ing an erroneous opinion in the Church*" Extend what has 
been said here to General Councils. 

10 Bellarmin lays down another valuable principle, in 
examining the conduct of Pope Stephen, " who ordered all 
who had received ordinations from his predecessor, Formo- 
sus, f to be re-ordained ; by which he seemed to imply that 
the validity of the sacrament depends on the virtue of the 
minister that confers it, which is a manifest error against 
faith. My answer is, he says, that Stephen erred in prescrib- 
ing an action, which evidently militated against a doctrine 

* Bellarm. Lib. 4. de Rom. Ponrif. cap. 5. pag. 212. 
t Bell. ibid. cap. 12. pag. 219. 



23 

of the church ; but he did not, by any means, teach erroneous 
doctrine; — he erred by establishing a bad precedent, but 
did not maintain anything false, or against faith/' And, in 
another place, he gives a similar answer ; " Stephen did not 
publish a decree declaring that persons ordained by a de- 
graded bishop ought to be re-ordained, nor did he even assert 
this of those ordained by Formosus, who had actually been 
deposed ; but merely de facto ordered certain persons, under 
these circumstances, to be re-ordained. An order which 
proves his hatred against Formosus, but does not establish a 
case against him of ignorance or heresy." If a similar case 
should ever occur in a General Council, these observations 
would apply also to it. 

11. The same writer also teaches* that " it is true to 
say, that the Pope, (or a General Council) may err, infram 
ing laws and regulations, provided those laws regard not 
points essentially connected with salvation ; and, also, do not 
touch what is, of its own nature, essentially good or evil. 
Thus a superfluous law may be passed, or one more or less 
indiscreet, &c. To illustrate what has been said by a few- 
examples. Neither the Pope, nor a General Council, can 
err so far as to enjoin a vicious action, as, for instance, usu- 
rious dealing ; or forbid a virtuous one, as restitution ; be- 
cause the latter of these is an essentially good, and the former 
an essentially bad action. Nor could the observance of 
circumcision, or the Jewish sabbath be required ; as this 
would be to impose observances opposed to the salvation of 
the faithful ; — nor, on the other hand, could a practice neces- 
sary for salvation be forbidden ; such as the reception of 
baptism, or the holy Eucharist, — although none of these rites 
are, of their own nature, either good or evil. There would, 
however, be nothing wrong or absurd in saying, that an in- 
different action — one neither essentially good nor bad, may 
be enjoined by the Pope, or a General Council ; or, a per- 
fectly useless practice, nowise connected with salvation, be 
prescribed ; or, in fine, a rite enforced under a penalty quite 
disproportionate to the case. But it is not, assuredly, the 
province of the faithful who are bound to trust in those whom 

* Eellarm. Lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif, cap. 5. p. 212. 



24 



God has placed over them, to entertain doubts on these sub- 
jects ; — it is their business to obey." 

12. It may be observed with the same author,* that 
" all Catholics are agreed that the Pope though speaking as 
the successor of St. Peter, that is, as Pope, and even assisted 
by a consistory, or, what is more, by a General Council, may 
err on mere matters of fact, which, as such, depend princi- 
pally, if not wholly, on the means of information, and testi- 
mony of individuals. On this principle he answers,f the 
common objection from the sixth General Council which 
denounced Pope Honorius as a heretic. He asserts, in the 
first place, " that the acts of the sixth General Council have 
been corrupted," and then observes, that " if any one, after 
all, cannot bring himself to believe that the controverted pas- 
sage in which Honorius is condemned is really not genuine, 
another solution, proposed by John and Turrecremata, may 
be adopted. This writer grants, indeed, that the Fathers of 
the sixth General Council actually condemned Honorius, 
but asserts that they were deceived in their judgment, which 
was formed on false information. For, undoubted as it is, 
that a General Council cannot err ; still this immunity from 
error does not extend to mere matters of fact ; and on ques- 
tions of faith nothing erroneous can be shewn in the decrees 
of this Synod. It may, therefore, with perfect safety, be 
maintained that Honorius was classed in the list of heretics 
by the Fathers of this Council without just reason, misled as 
they were by false reports, and evidently misunderstanding 
the meaning of Honorius's letters "% " The seventh General 
Council did nothing more than follow the opinion of the 
sixth, and transcribe the declaration contained in its decrees; 
so that the Fathers of the seventh council were led into 
error by their predecessors of the sixth, whose docu- 
ments had been probably corrupted, or who at least, had, 
unjustifiably, condemned Honorius. " He gives the same 
answer to the share which Pope Adrian had in this business. 
" If we say that the acts of the sixth synod were corrupted, 
we must answer, that these corruptions misled Adrian."§ 

* Bellarm. ibid. cap. 2. page 209. col. 1. f Ibid. cap. 12. p. 219. 
% Bellarm. ibid. § Ibid. 



25 

13 I shall conclude these principles with one from 
Suarez.* " Though the Pope in granting an indulgence, 
expressly assign his reason for such grant, conceiving it a 
sufficient and just ground ; it is not, on that account, cer- 
tain that it really is so; nor, consequently, sure that the 
whole indulgence is valid. A Papal decree of this kind is 
not on a matter of faith, but confined to a particular fact, 
and depends, therefore, on a mere question of human pru- 
dence and judgment; in which cases it is agreed, that the 
Pope is not infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, since 
Christ's prayer, in St. Luke,f is simply this ' I have prayed 
for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not." ' 

" The above is true also of dispensations from vows : — al- 
though the Pope may think and declare that a sufficient 
cause exists, he may be deceived ; as his judgment in these 
cases, can only be directed by mere human prudence and 
opinion, and is liable even to be biased by many natural 
feelings. " The reasoning of Suarez shews clearly, that these 
principles must be extended, to similar cases in General 
Councils. These observations are highly creditable to the 
author, and of great value. From them it is clear, that there 
is even much less reason for supposing, that the validity of 
any particular sentence of excommunication, can possibly 
be an Article of Faith. Suarez, however, adds, % and justly, 
that "it is never expedient ; in fact, that it would be highly 
imprudent and scandalous, publicly to denounce an indul- 
gence, granted by the Holy See, as null and superfluous ; to 
do so would, generally speaking, be useless, and shew but 
little of that respect which is due, from every member of the 
church, to the Vicar of Christ." We are bound, in like man- 
ner, to comply with all the laws and regulations prescribed 
by the Holy See, even those enjoined under pain of excom- 
munication ; and any one refusing to do so, would sin, and 
actually incur the excommunication, although the Pope may 
have erred, in the sense explained above, in fulminating that 
sentence, and though it is not of faith, that he, has not really 
and de facto erred. The reason of this is, that the rule by 

* Suarez, Tom. 4. Disp. 56. de Indulg. sect. 3. f St. Luke, xxii. 32. 
X Suarez 1. c. , .-; i 

E 



26 

which our faith is regulated, is Very different from the princi- 
ples upon which ecclesiastical laws are founded : the former 
must be, and is, infallible ; whilst infallibility is not required 
for the laws of the church to bind in conscience. For this it 
is enough, that they emanate from a competent authority, 
which has judged them good, &c. Indeed a merely probable 
opinion as to their usefulness, is sufficient for their introduc- 
tion, as I have shewn in an extract from Vasquez. And it 
may be laid down as a general rule, to which no sensible, and 
good man will object that a great degree of deference is due, 
in all things, to the judgment and will of those whom God 
has placed over us. This is the natural dictate of reason, 
and may be confirmed by numerous passages of the sacred 
writings. But as the only object of the present pages is, to 
bring those who have abandoned the Catholic Faith to a pro- 
fession of its doctrines, I shall spend no more time on these 
questions. I shall proceed, at once, to shew what are the 
doctrines of the Catholic Church, and what are not. 



CHAP. II. 

Articles of Faith, on particular points of controversy, distin- 
guished from doctrines not taught by the Catholic Church. 

We have now before us, the general principles, by which 
the doctrines of the Catholic Church may, with proper atten- 
tion, be distinguished from the mere opinions of the school- 
men ; and, indeed, from all other opinions whatever. With 
these principles we will proceed to separate what is of faith, 
and particularly of Catholic Faith, on all controverted ques- 
tions, from what is not. 

As to the opinions of the schools, and their comparative 
probability, — which has superior claims to our assent ;— and 
which is to be embraced as morally certain, as not being 
merely probable, but confirmed and supported by the almost 
unanimous consent of our theologians ; or, finally, what par- 
ticular doctrines, coming under the class of theological con- 
elusions, are to be received as undoubted truths; with all this 
we have no concern ; our only business is, by a plain state- 
ment of the doctrines of our Church, to bring, if possible, 
those v»ho have strayed from the truth, back to the one fold 



27 

of Christ. With this view, I shall omit all these matters as 
unnecessary, and as only calculated to render the way to the 
truth more difficult; and confine myself, as much as possible, 
to our real tenets. And if it should happen, as it often does, 
that those who differ from us in religion, should ask us, for an 
opinion on any of these points, it is better to tell them, at 
once, that the church has decided nothing on the proposed 
question ; that we profess to follow, and not to anticipate 
her judgment. In a word, that our professions of faith are 
silent on these subjects, and that nothing but what they con- 
tain is required to be believed and subscribed, by those who 
are admitted members of the Catholic Church. We must re- 
mind such persons of the advice of St. Paul,* "not to be more 
wise than it behoveth to be wise,but to be wise unto sobriety/' 
That if, when received into the Catholic Church, he should 
still be curious to know the opinions of the schools, they will 
be explained to him; but, that if he feel no such wish, he 
need never hear a word on the subject, as he may work out his 
salvation, and be a saint, and yet know nothing about them. 
He will perceive that, for the present at least, such an in- 
quiry would, very likely, tend only to perplex, and confound 
his mind, by loading it with a multiplicity of opinions and 
arguments the most opposite, abstruse, and metaphysical : 
that such subjects are best left to the schools of divinity, in 
which it requires years of study to come to any thing like a 
satisfactory conclusion on these knotty points; none of which, 
after all, are articles of Catholic Faith. 

But to come to particular questions of controversy, and 
the work of separation according to the plan proposed,— 
examining every opinion by the rule of Catholic Faith laid 
down, in the preceding pages, as the criterion of truth. With 
that single principle we might advance, securely and unhe- 
sitatingly, in the enquiry ; but, for fear lest I may appear 
rash in some, at least, of my decisions ; to some, who, from 
ignorance of the real doctrines of our Church, might condemn 
me unjustly ; and to put a stop, at once and effectually, to 
the censures, whether private or public, of such people; I 

* Rom. xii. 3. 



28 

will take care to support every application of the rule of 
faith, and every decision to which it may lead me, by the 
authority of the most approved Catholic theologians. 

§i- 

On the merit of good works — grace — and eternal glory. 

The doctrine of the Council of Trent on merit is this:* 
" If any one shall say, that the good works of the just man 
are so far the gifts of God, as not to be to the advantage and 
merit of the faithful servant of God ; or, that the just man 
does not truly merit, by the good works which he has per- 
formed, — through the grace of God, and the merits of Jesus 
Christ, whose living member he is, — an increase of grace — 
life everlasting, — and, if he depart this life in the state of 
grace, the fruition of eternal life, as also an increase of glory, 
let him be anathema." And, in the 26th canon of the same 
Session, it also declares, that * If any one shall say, that the 
just, who have persevered to the end in virtue, and the ob- 
servance of the divine commands, ought not, as a reward of 
their good works performed in the Lord, to expect, and to 
hope for an everlasting retribution from God, through his 
mercy, and the merits of Jesus Christ, let him be anathema." 

We have here before us the heretical tenets, that are to 
be rejected Under pain of anathema, — and, according to the 
rule laid down in the preceding pages, what is to be believed, 
on the subject of. merit, as of Catholic Faith, since it is pro- 
posed to the belief of all the faithful, b} T a General Council. 

Hence we may conclude also, that it is not an article of 
Catholic Faith, that there may not be such a thing, I, as 
merit of condignness ; 2, of conqruity ; nor, 3, that the re- 
warding of our merit arises rather from the justice of God, 
than from his fidelity to his engagements ; and 4, much less 
that this merit ought to be rewarded from a principle of strict 
and rigorous justice. The correctness of these deductions is 
clear; first, from the silence of the Council of Trent, and of 
all our other General Councils ; 'And, secondly, from the diver- 
sity of opinion that exists, on these questions, among our Ca- 

* Condi. Trid. SesV. 6. cau. 3'2. 



29 

tholic writers. We learn from Bellarmin,* that u Three 
questions arise on the nature of merit. First, whether the 
merits of the just are to be called of condignness, or of con- 
gruity ; — secondly, does the condignness of these merits arise 
from the divine promises only, or also from the works of the 
just man ; — and, thirdly, does God reward the works of the 
just beyond, and punish the evil deeds of the wicked less than, 
their condignness. With regard to the first question, though 
all Catholics unite in agreeing, that the good works of the 
just are meritorious of eternal life ; still, some are of opinion, 
that these works ought not to be said to merit this reward, 
either from a principle of condignness, or of congruity ; but, 
that we ought to confine ourselves to the bare and simple 
proposition, that the good works of the just are, by God's 
grace, meritorious of eternal life. This is taught by Thomas 
ofWalden. Others, however, hold, that the works of the 
just may, in a modified sense, be said to merit eternal life 
condignly, — but the condignness allowed by these writers, 
when compared with the accurate and theological meaning 
of the word, really amounts to no more than mere congruity. 
Durand, Gregory of Valentia, and some others, are of this 
opinion. But the common opinion of divines is in favour 
of merit of condignity, in its strict and theological sense. 
Durandus's opinion, if it mean no more than that our merits 
are not of condignness, or meritorious of eternal life, on prin- 
ciples of absolute justice, but merely hypothetically, that is, 
supposing the existence of a gracious promise to that effect, on 
the part of the Almighty, — ought not to be condemned. But 
he seems rather to think, that our merits, though derived 
from the grace of God, and allowing even the existence of a 
promise on his part to reward them, are still not deserving 
of this reward, on strict principles of justice, but merely on 
account of the liberality of God." In the following chapter,f 
he treats of the second question, which is, " whether good 
works are condignly meritorious, in virtue of the promise of 
God only, — or merely in consequence of the good works per- 
formed, — or, in virtue of both. Cajetan, Soto, and some o- 

*Bellarra. De Justif. Lib 4. cap. Ifi. p. 282. 
fBellarm. Lib. 4. De Justif. cap 17. p. 283. 



so 

ther theologians assert, that good works are, of their own 
nature, even exclusively of any promise on the part of God, 
deserving of eternal life. Whilst, Scotus, and Vega, &c., on 
the contrary, think, that good works, — which are the effect of 
divine grace, — are not condignly meritorious by virtue of the 
works performed ; but merely deserve eternal life, because 
God has been pleased to receive them on these terms, and to 
pledge his holy word to reward them in this manner. The 
doctrine of these divines differs widely from that of Luther : 
for, Scotus does not pretend that good works are not really 
good and excellent, or that they are actual sins, if examined 
by the standard of the divine law, as the Lutherans assert, — 
but is of opinion, that the works of the just, though really 
good, in the plain meaning of the words, are not of sufficient 
value to be, in any sense, said to be proportionate to the 
eternal happiness of a future life : — that, accordingly, they 
are accepted by the Almighty, in consequence of his covenant 
and promise, and not because the works themselves are of 
value enough to merit eternal life. The third, which takes 
a middle course between these two opposite opinions, seems 
to me the most probable By this we are taught, that the 
good works of the just are condignly deserving of eternal life, 
in virtue both of the divine covenant, and of the works them- 
selves : not, however, but that, even without this covenant, 
and acceptance on the part of God, our good works would be 
proportionate to the reward of eternal life, — but that, with- 
out presupposing such a covenant, the Almighty would be 
under no obligation to admit our good works to this high 
recompense, though of themselves equal and perfectly pro- 
portionate to it." As to the last question, which is, " Whe- 
ther God, from his own pure liberality, rewards the works of 
the just beyond their condign deserts; most theologians think 
that he does, though Vega denies this : I will, however, 
briefly prove, that God does reward our works beyond their 
condign value, &c. . . .The opinions of divines are not equal- 
ly unanimous on a question connected with the preceding, 
namely, whether God punishes the evil deeds of the wicked 
less than they condignly deserve, &c." 

§ Bell. 1. c. cap. 16. p. 284, 



31 

The above extracts from Bellarmine are confirmed by 
the following passages from Vasquez.* "Though all the 
schoolmen, and those who have written against the heresies 
of the day, unanimously teach, that a just man, truly deserves 
life eternal by his good works ; still, when they came to treat 
of the intrinsic nature of merit, and of merit condignly de- 
serving eternal life, they no longer agree in opinion. St. 
Thomas,f in fact, affirms, that no work of ours can be said 
to be, strictly speaking, essentially meritorious in the sight 
of God. He argues thus ; where there is neither strict jus- 
tice nor strict equality, there merit cannot be properly said 
to exist ; now, there is no such a thing as strict justice and 
equality between God and man ; consequently, no humam 
act can, in a strict sense, be said to merit a recompense from 
God. Durand seems to be of the same way of thinking. He 
says, our works, performed in the state of grace, cannot pro- 
perly be said to be intrinsically meritorious ; and adds, that 
our merits, before God, are not condignly deserving the re- 
ward of glory ; and that they are only called merits, in this 
sense, that God, by his divine law and appointment, requires 
our works as conditions, without which he will not confer 
upon us this glorious immortality. According to him, eter- 
nal life is conferred, in consequence of the divine promises, 
and not because it is condignly deserved by our merit : that 
between the immortality of glory, and the meritorious works 
of the just, there is no condign equality, not even such as 
subsists between the seed and its produce : he, therefore con- 
cludes that the merits of the just, compared with the rewards 
of heaven, are no more than merits of congruity. He, how- 
ever, observes, that the merit by w 7 hich the just man obtains 
eternal life, holds a middle place between the congruous merit 
of the sinner, and that which is strictly the merit of condign- 
ness, and is the fruit of justice, and may, therefore, be called, 
in part, congruous, and in part condign. "■ The same author 
makes, also, the following remarks: J" Many Catholic wri- 
ters have taught, that the works of the just, of their own na- 
ture, without a covenant on the part of God, and unaccepted 

. 1. -2. di*p. 213. cap. 3. t & Thorn, art. 1. qua?s. 114, 
J Vafcq. disp. 214. instit. cap. 1, 2. 



32 



by him, are not meritorious of eternal life."* "Many also 
have been of opinion, that the works of the just are of them- 
selves of some value, but that their great value is derived 
from the merits and grace of Christ. "f " More modern theo- 
logians, however, think, that the whole value of the works of 
the just is to be ascribed to the works themselves ; but that 
the character of merit is stamped on them by the divine pro- 
mises only." He then explains his own opinion. " As I 
have taught that there cannot be such a thing as justice 
strictly so called, but merely in a wide and general sense, 
between God and man ; I do not attribute to the Almighty 
any obligation of rewarding good works, with eternal glory 
injustice, as if he were bound to recompense us for the good 
works which he receives from us : but I confine it entirely to 
his promise, and his fidelity to his engagements. Hence, 
were he not to reward them with eternal life, (which is, of 
course, impossible,) he could not properly be said to be un- 
just, but he might be said to be unfaithful, because he would 
violate his own word. He might, indeed, be said to be un- 
just, in as much as fidelity to our engagements, being a spe- 
cies of justice, a breach of promise, as it partakes of the 
nature of injustice, may be called by that name." Such is 
the language of Vasquez. J It is clear that nothing of the 
above is of faith ; they are the opinions of different school- 
men ; controverted questions on which even our own writers 
du not agree. Therefore, if we separate these from our doc- 
trinal articles, our adversaries can have but little or no diffi- 
culty, in subscribing to what is really of Catholic Faith, on 
the merit of good works. Mestrezat,§ in his treatise entitled 
Grace ogainst Merits, has already done so. " We acknow- 
ledge/' says he, " that good works are pleasing to God, and 
that they obtain for us eternal life ; and all that we contend 
for is, that they obtain us this blessing through the goodness, 
grace, bounty, and mercy of God, and we wish that the word 
meritum, or merit, be understood in the plain meaning which 
it has in the Latin language." Mestrezat is perfectly ortho- 
dox, and believes everything that a Catholic is bound to re- 
ceive, as of faith, on the merit of good works. 
* Va?q. ut hiipra. c. I. f Vr*q. ut sup. c. 2. % Vasq. disp. 215. 
§ Mestraz. p. 25. 



33 

2. Neither is it an article of Catholic Faith, that all the 
works of the just are meritorious of eternal life; that is to 
say, it is not defined what works in particular, besides those 
which proceed from charity, are deserving of that happiness ; 
whether, for instance, works flowing from the virtues of tem- 
perance, faith, hope, Sfc, are of this character. The proof 
is obvious : First, the Council of Trent no where defines that 
any specific work of the above kinds are meritorious : and, 
Secondly, Bellarmin and others inform us, that our writers 
disagree on this subject. "It is disputed/ says Vasquez,* 
" amongst the schoolmen, whether the just merit eternal life 
by charity only, and by works proceeding from charity ; or 
by good works of every kind, not flowing from that virtue. 
Some teach, that only by good works that proceed from 
charity does the just man merit eternal life. This is affirmed 
by Scotus, Gabriel, Durand," and also by Bellarmin.f " But, 
for my part," he continues, " I have always thought that any 
kind of good work performed by a just man, if it be, in every 
respect, according to the principles of moral virtue, — is meri- 
torious of eternal life. I am supported in this opinion by 
Bonaventure, Soto, and Capreolus, &c." 

This places us at an immeasurable distance, from a doc- 
trine, calumniously, but commonly ascribed to us by dissen- 
ters, who assert that we make perfection consist in fasting, 
celibacy, monastic vows, &c, and not in the love of God. 
The truth is, that it is not even an article of Catholic Faith, 
that these works are meritorious of eternal life, unless they 
proceed from charity ! These scholastic opinions once set 
aside, those who differ from us on other points, can find no 
difficulty, at least, on this head, in subscribing to our belief. 
I have shewn above, that Mestrezat acknowledges, that, 
by our works, we deserve eternal life ; but he makes no 
distinction between the various kinds of good works, his as- 
sertion regarding good works in general : he, therefore, be- 
lieves more on this point than he need do, and yet be a good 
Catholic. 

3. It is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church, that the 

* Vasq. disp. 2i7, c. 1. 

f Bellarm. Lib. 5, de Justif. c. 15. p. 281. 

F 



34 



just man can merit for others, in any of the various meanings 
of the word merit, not even by merit of congruity ; or obtain 
by his merit the conversion of a sinner, or any other grace 
whatever. This is proved, first, from the silence of the 
Council of Trent on the question of meriting for others, and 
the consequent absence of any decree of the church on this 
subject ; and, secondly, from the variety of opinions held 
by Catholics upon this point. The following passage from 
Vasquez,* I approve of, and consider the doctrine which it 
contains certain. " The natural, and only effects of the 
grace of adoption, when communicated to a merec reature, are 
to enable the soul that has been made partaker of it, to merit 
condignly eternal life, and an increase of its own powerful 
efficacy in himself; but not thereby to merit condignly, in 
the slightest degree, the first justifying grace for others, nor 
even the least grace as a help towards it. Hence, neither the 
apostles, nor the Blessed Virgin, who were in the most per- 
fect enjoyment of habitual justice, and the grace of adoption, 
could ever condignly merit the least degree of grace as an 
assistance to others. The reason is simply this, that the 
efficacy of habitual grace is merely to enable us to merit 
these rewards, — namely, grace and glory, — confined too, to 
ourselves, and incommunicable to others ; nor does it make 
any difference however much this grace may be increased in 
our souls, since its nature still remains the same." This, in 
fact, was a prerogative of Christ only. Suarez also approves 
of this view of the question.f u Merit of grace and glory," 
says he, " is so completely personal, that no one can commu- 
nicate his own merit to another, so as to enable him to ob- 
tain this latter favor ; namely, eternal glory, as the price, as 
it were, and reward of such communication : — this price 
must be paid by his own personal actions, since by them 
alone is man rendered worthy of everlasting life." This prin- 
ciple is quite undeniable. " We must, therefore, conclude," 
says Vasquez,^ " that the grace of adoption is only a princi- 
ple, and source of merit ; a seed whose fruit is glory to him 
who has been made partaker of its benefits ; and a cause 

* Vasquez. disp. 4. cap. 5. 
f Suarez, Tom. 4. disp. 48, sect. 2. * Vasquez. 1. c. 



3.5 



also of its own increase in his soul : but it neither enables 
us to merit condignly for others any of the varied helps of 
divine grace, nor justification ; and, consequently, a mere 
creature could not perfectly and condignly satisfy for others." 
This, was, in fact, as I just observed, a privilege confined 
to Christ only, and by his incarnation alone could this ob- 
ject be attained. 

But though we cannot condignly, may we not at least 
by congruity merit for another ? The answer clearly is, that 
it is not of faith that we can do so. First, because the 
Council of Trent has not proposed this to our belief; secondly, 
because some theologians, as I have already had occasion to 
notice, so far from admitting of the merit of congruity for 
others, think that we cannot even merit in this manner for 
ourselves ; and, thirdly, in the remarks that I shall have 
occasion to make later on satisfaction, I shall prove that 
the above is no article of our faith. All our satisfactions 
are by way of merit, and the Council of Trent holds the 
same language with respect both to merit and satisfaction. 

However, if the real meaning of * merit of congruity," as 
employed by our writers, were but well understood by Pro- 
testants, they could, after all, have no difficulty in admitting 
it; and of even believing that we may merit, in this sense, 
for others. M We use the terms merit of congruity, saysVas- 
quez, * and impetratory action, or merit, indiscriminately, 
and as perfectly equivalent phrases ; — merit of congruity ob- 
tains, by impetration, the favor of which it is considered the 
meritorious cause — it consists solely in impetration. " Now, 
no one can be ignorant, that by prayer, w r e obtain numerous 
blessings both for ourselves and others, and also avert many 
evils. Hence, in the public form of prayer used, in time of 
pestilence, by our dissenting brethren, we see that they are 
exhorted to offer up their prayers to God to obtain mercy ; 
and, unless they expect to be heard, of what use is it, to offer 
up their prescribed form of prayer, on every Sunday of the 
year, for so many different classes and kinds of men. Now 
this is precisely what is meant by merit of congruity ! More- 
over, it cannot be doubted, that the faithful, by various kinds 

* Vasquez 3. Parte q. 94. ait. 1. dub. 4. 



36 



of good works, obtain from God, or rather from his infinite 
mercy, many blessings both spiritual and temporal, both for 
themselves, and others. And I believe it is more probable, 
that these works merit these blessings condignly ; — that this 
condignness flows partly from the works themselves,and part- 
ly from God's promise ; — and finally that not only works 
flowing from the principle of the love of God, but all others, 
performed by a just man, are meritorious of eternal life. 

§2. 
On Justification. 
The following is the doctrine of the Council of Trent on 
this subject :*• — " If any one shall say, that men are justified, 
either by the sole imputation of Christ's justice ; or by the sole 
remission of sins, to the exclusion of grace, and of that chari- 
ty, which is poured into their hearts by the Holy Ghost,f and 
is inherent in them ; or, moreover, that the grace, whereby we 
are justified, is only the favor of God, let him be anathema." 
And in the tenth canon of the same Session, the Council de- 
crees, that, "if any one shall say, that man is justified in- 
dependently of the justice of Christ, by which he was enabled 
to merit for us ; or, that he is formally justified by it alone, 
let him be anathema." We, from these extracts, see what is 
heretical, and, consequently, what is of Catholic Faith on 
this subject, — since it is propounded by a General Council. 
The same doctrine is more fully explained, in the seventh 
chapter of the same Session. 

. From this exposition of doctrine we may deduce, that it 
is not an article of Catholic Faith, that this inherent justice 
is habitual, or, which is the same thing, that the inherent jus- 
tice, which is the formal cause of our justification, is a habit 
or permanent quality. The proof is this, that, in the first 
place, neither the Council of Trent, nor any other General 
Council, has defined this point, Secondly — " It is contro- 
verted," says Vasquez,J " whether the Church has ever de- 
fined, and, consequently, whether it is an article of Catholic 
Faith, that the justification of the sinner is a permanent 

* Sess. 6. can. 1 J. f Rom. v. 5. 

+ V-asquez, 1. 2. !%${). 203. cap. 2. 



37 

quality and habit of the soul : or, whether this justification 
may not be equally well supposed to be produced, by an af 
fective impulse of divine love, and contrition for sin ; and 
the whole body of evidence adduced from the sacred writings, 
Councils, and Fathers, be equally well explained, by saying, 
that inherent justice is an affective act of the love of God, 
and contrition for sin. It was thought by Vega, and several 
modern writers have followed his opinion, that the Church 
has already defined, that man is justified by a permanent 
habit and quality, and that every thing, that is taught by the 
Church on man's justification, concurs in supposing, that 
this is the nature of our justification. However, to me it 
seems probable,* that the Church has, hitherto, nowhere de- 
fined, that the justification of adults, independently of the sa- 
crament, is a habit." The following is the title to one of his 
chapters.f "From the writings of the schoolmen, it is shewn, 
that it has not been hitherto defined, that the justification of 
adults, without the sacrament, is a habit." He also express- 
ly declares, a little later, that " it has not been defined, that 
inherent justice is a habit." Soto and Canus are of the same 
opinion ; and, accordingly, observe, that the Council of 
Trent, in defining % that the formal cause of man's justifica- 
tion is inherent justice, purposely abstained from using the 
word ' habit/ not wishing to define anything on that point ; 
and that, consequently, nothing more is meant by the decree 
alluded to, than that man is not formally justified by the 
mere favor and justice of another, but by an inherent and 
intrinsic justice. The scope and object of the council was to 
shew, in opposition to what had been asserted by certain 
Heretics, that we are not justified by an extrinsic justice as 
these writers pretended, but by a justice really intrinsic and 
inherent. Stapleton tells us, that he does not intend to ex- 
amine minutely, what it is which, being found really inherent 
in us, is precisely and strictly the formal cause of our first 
justification, and our perseverance in that state : — as whether 
it be the fixed, and permanent habit of certain virtues, which 
God infuses into the soul ; or, not an infused habit, but merely 

* Vasquez, Disp. 203. cap. 3. f Vasquez, ut. sup. cap. 3. 

$ Concfl. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 7. 



38 

an actual, but continued and virtuous motion and inclination 
of the soul. Pie also passes over many other similar ques- 
tions, as undeserving of attention ; among which is one closely 
connected with the subject under consideration, — namely, 
whether the formal cause of man's justification be the obser- 
vance of the divine Law, and the practice of virtue, from a 
belief ot whatever is of faith ; or not rather an intrinsic new- 
ness and renovation of the inward man. His reason for this 
is, that these questions rather belong to the schools, than to 
the controversies of the day, and that, on this account, the 
Church has neither in past ages, nor in the late decrees of the 
Council of Trent, given any definitive opinion on either side 
of the question. He then adds, " The Fathers of Trent do in- 
deed teach, that e^ery one receives within himself his justifi- 
cation in just measure, — a justification, too, which, from the 
gifts infused, is really inherent ; but this may be said, in 
some manner, to be verified in every one of the above theories. " 
Vasquez* states that " The Church has no where expressly 
defined, that the justification of children, or, of those in whom 
it is produced by the help of the Sacrament, by attrition only, 
is the effect of a permanent habit ; the council confined 
itself to the general declaration that justification is, in every 
case, produced by inherent justice. He, however, adds,f 
and justly, that " The common opinion of theologians, and 
the only true one, is, that the final cause of man's justifica- 
tion is not merely an inherent created justice, but that this 
justice and holiness is a quality that is permanently in the 
soul ; or, as it is commonly called a habit." He even asserts^ 
that, from the decree of the Council of Trent, it clearly fol- 
lows, that children and adults, whose sins are remitted by 
virtue of the sacrament, are justified by a permanent habit 
and quality only ; and that, consequently, this opinion so 
far belongs to our articles of Catholic Faith, that it cannot 
be denied without error," though it may, according to our 
principles, without heresy. 

The conclusion to be drawn from the preceding observa- 
tion is, that there is scarcely a shadow of difference between 

* Ymq. ibid. cap. 6. t Vasq. 1. c. cap. 2. 

^+ Vasquez. Disp. 203. cap. 6. 



39 

the doctrine of Catholics and Protestants on this head. " We 
must admit,'* says Vasquez,* " the common opinion of the 
schoolmen, and, in fact, the only true one, that the formal 
cause of man's justification is a habit of justifying grace, 
though this has not, as yet, been proposed as an article of 
Catholic Faith : and, this principle once admitted, it is far 
better to ascribe our justification, and cleansing from sin to 
this habit, rather than to any actual justice ; since, by adopt- 
ing this view, justification is produced, in all cases, precisely 
in the same manner : especially as we have already shewn 
that the final cause of the justification of infants, and of 
those who are justified by virtue of the sacrament, must ne- 
cessarily be allowed to be a habit, or permanent justice. 

" Inherent justice," says Mestrezatf in his Treatise on 
Grace, which is the " renewing of our souls in sanctity by 
Christian virtues, has its share in our salvation. "% " God 
does not impute, but produces inherent justice within us."§ 
"As to the spirit of the new Adam, we derive it from regene- 
ration, just as from natural generation we derive the habitu- 
al corruption of Adam." This writer admits in express and 
clear language inherent justice, and is, consequently, per- 
fectly orthodox on the subject of justification. He even 
acknowledges that this justice is habitual, which as yet we 
do not receive as an article of Catholic Faith. The rest is 
a mere dispute about words — a pure logomachy. " If," says 
Du Moulin, || " by the word * justification' be meant regene- 
ration and sanctification, as our adversaries understand it ; 
it is not true to say, that we teach that by faith alone, we 
are justified, for a Christian is regenerated by the practice 
of all Christian virtue." This shews Du Moulin to be on 
this point, a perfectly good Catholic. Here, then, we have 
a plain instance of disunion caused by misunderstanding, 
and of unanimity by simply stating our doctrine. 

§3. 
On Satisfaction. 
1. "If any one shall say, that satisfaction is not made to 
God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, for the temporal 

* Vasquez, 1. c. cap. 10. f Mestrez. De Gratia, p. 35. 

X Mestrez. De Gratia, p. 12. § Ibid. p. 37. || Da Moul. in Eras. p. 49. 



40 



punishment due to sin, by the patient endurance of the afflic- 
tions sent us from heaven ; or by the performance of the pen- 
ance enjoined us by the priest ; as also, by actions volunta- 
rily imposed on ourselves, as fasting, prayer, alms-deeds, and 
even other works of piety, let him be anathema." Can. 14. 
" If any one shall say, that the works of satisfaction, by 
which, through Jesus Christ, penitent sinners redeem their 
sins, are not acts of divine worship ; but mere traditions of 
men, that obscure the true doctrine of grace, and the real 
worship of God, and the benefit of Christ's death, let him be 
anathema." The above doctrines are thus condemned, and 
anathematized by the Council of Trent.* 

II. We also, consequently, see, as it is a General Coun- 
cil that speaks, what is the real doctrine of the Catholic 
Church. However, on the other hand, it follows, 1, that it is 
not an article of our Faith, as was also observed on the sub- 
ject of merit, that we satisfy by congruity , or condignness : f 
by the sole excellency of our works, or by virtue of the divine 
promises, or by these two conjointly ; neither is it of faith, 
that we satisfy in justice, by a rigorous and strict justice, or 
by the mere fidelity of God to his promises. This is proved, 
first, from the silence of the Council of Trent ; secondly, from 
the difference of opinion among our writers. " Ledesmas, 
and Durand assure us," says Vasquez, % " that man satisfies 
for the punishment due to sin, merely through the goodness 
of God, who is pleased to accept the satisfaction offered. 

3. Nor is it of Faith, that this satisfaction is made by any 
works but those that flow from charity ; as also by fasting, 
prayer, alms-deeds, &c, provided always that these actions 
proceed from charity First, because the Council of Trent 
does not propose this to be believed, either in the canon quo- 
ted above, or in any other. Secondly, because our Theologians 
differ on this point. " Henricus," says Suarez, § " gives us 

*Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. can, 13, 14. 
t The following proposition of Baius was condemned by Pius V. 
and Gregory XIII. " Satisfactiones laboriosoe justificatorum non valent 
expiare de condigno psenam temporalem restantem post culpam condona- 
tam." (Transl.) 

^Vasquez, 3 parte q. 94. art. 1. dub. 3. 
§ Suarez, de po?n. disp. 37. sect. 3. 



41 

to understand, that the love of God must be the ruling prin- 
ciple of all these actions." 

4. It is not of faith, that the just man can satisfy for 
another. 1. The Council of Trent does not propose this to 
our belief. 2. Suarez,* at the head of his 48th controversy, 
has the following question : " Can one man assist another by 
way of suffrage, by satisfying in his stead, or by undergoing 
the punishment due to his sins ? It is the opinion," he says, 
" of some modern theologians, that such suffrage is of no ef- 
fect before God, and that the only help, which we can afford 
our neighbour, is to beg, and merit congruously the remis- 
sion of the punishment due to his sin, — so that God, moved 
by our prayers, may either gratuitously grant this pardon ; 
or, at least such helps and graces as may effectually stir up 
our neighbour to such works of virtue, as may obtain for him 
the remission of the punishment that remains due to his sins. 
The reasons of this opinion are, 1, that the debt of punish- 
ment being personal, must be discharged by the personal 
good actions and mortifications of the sinner, and not vicari- 
ously ; for no one can communicate his actions or sufferings 
to another, so as to make them really his neighbour's, and 
cease to be his own. He that has sinned, deserves to be 
punished, and not another, who is innocent of that offence ; 
and a debt, consequently, is contracted by sin, which the sin- 
ner must expiate by his own actions and sufferings, and 
not by those of another. 2. The debt of punishment can on- 
ly be contracted by our own, and not by another's sins, — the 
satisfaction, therefore, by a parity of argument, cannot be 
derived from any but our own works. 3 The most that can 
be proved, from the texts of scripture, which are usually 
cited, to support an opinion contrary to that here advocated, 
is, that the faithful may mutually assist each other by pray- 
er and supplication. From this doctrine it follows, that al- 
though a just man may offer up his actions, in satisfaction 
for the debt of temporal punishment due to the sins of ano- 
ther, and may actually obtain this object, — still he satisfies 
equally for his own sins by these same works ; since, by an 
act of charity towards another, he, by no means, deprives 

* Suarez, Tom. 4. disp, 48, sect. 2, 
G 



42 



himself- of. the fruit of his own personal satisfaction : — for, 
not satisfying for another by his own sufferings, it follows 
that his satisfaction goes to expiate what is due to his own 
sins. Thus a just man, when he prays, or performs a good 
work, that another may obtain the help of divine grace, or a 
blessing of any other kind whatever, performs an action as 
condignly meritorious of eternal life, as if he merited nothing 
by congruity for another ; so, in like manner, when the just 
man obtains by congruity the remission of the temporal pun- 
ishment due to another's sins, he condignly satisfies for him- 
self, as effectually as if no such remission had been obtained 
for another." 

I will subjoin the two following observations to confirm 
and illustrate the above principles. The first is from Vas- 
quez.* "The temporal punishment due to sin," says this 
writer, "is not remitted by what is called satispassion, but 
by satisfaction, which is received by the Almighty as a meri- 
torious work. And from this principle, he draws this conclu- 
sion, that us God requires satisfaction before he pardons the 
punishment due to sin, and as this satisfaction is received as 
a meritorious act, it can be of no avail unless performed by 
a just man, in other words, a sinner in a state of mortal sin, 
cannot satisfy for the punishment due to his sins ; and, con- 
sequently, these actions, unless performed in a state of grace, 
are not meritorious, nor satisfactory. The second observa- 
tion is made by Suarez/f* "In discussing the principles, on 
which the Almighty will reward our actions, or receive our 
satisfaction, we can derive no light whatever from the mere 
examination of abstract principles, since everything neces- 
sarily depends on the supreme will of, and the rule establish- 
ed by the Almighty, who could have definitively decreed, that, 
by the sufferings of purgatory alone, should the temporal 
punishment due to sin be remitted ; in which case, no one 
could have satisfid, even by his own actions,, for this punish- 
ment. The Almighty might also have adopted another course, — 
have resolved that the temporal punishment due to sin should 
not necessarily indeed be undergone in Purgatory, but only 

* Vasquez, 3. par. de Psenit. q. 94. art. 1. dub. 4. 
fSuarez, Tom. 4. disp, 48. sect. 2. 



43 

have prescribed this as an alterative, and hypothetically ; 
so that the sinner should either undergo this punishment in a 
future life, or satisfy for it in this, in a manner perfectly con- 
dign, and morally equivalent, — which, in fact, is the system 
which he has been pleased to adopt, since the just are able 
to satisfy for their sins. In addition to this two-fold way of 
satisfying for sins, the Almighty, it may be observed, might 
also have willed that the punishment due to sin should be 
expiated, either in purgatory, or in this life, and this too, either 
by our own works, or by those of another, voluntarily offer- 
ing for our benefit the punishment which he inflicts upon 
himself; in which case, supposing this to be the law of God, 
a sufficient satisfaction would be made." In the above ex- 
tract, Suarez gives us a general view of the nature of satis- 
faction : — he, indeed, observes that the first opinion mention- 
ed above seems to him false ; and being but very lately 
advanced by any theologian, is, in consequence, as the matter is 
of such importance, to be rejected ; — but still he does not ven- 
ture to say, that it is contrary to faith, — much less that it is 
opposed to Catholic faith. In fact he candidly acknowledges 
that, as it depends on the institution and will of the Almighty, 
(that one man should be able to satisfy for another) argu- 
ments drawn from the reason and nature of the thing, are of 
no avail, nor is there any passage of scripture which can be 
said to prove it beyond contradiction ; since the facts ad- 
duced above, might, strictly speaking, be understood of im- 
petration, and of mere congruous merit" And indeed the 
authority of the modern theologians whom he cites, is, pro- 
bably, quite enough to place the above in the rank of contro- 
verted opinions. The same writer observes* that "there is 
a difficulty in determining, whether our satisfaction for 
another person is as condign, and on the same principle of 
justice, as that for ourselves. A first opinion, which I shall 
state, is, that such satisfaction arises, not from a principle of 
condignness or justice, but from the free acceptance of God ; 
and may even be said to be based on a principle of cOngruity 
as far as regards him that offers it, — not, however, so as to 
render its acceptance by the Almighty absolutely certain, 

* Suarez, 1. c. sect. 3. 



44 

though proceeding from a just man, in favour of another in 
the same happy state. This opinion is supported by Medina 
and Corduba on these grounds : first, because we can con- 
ceive no obligation, in any judge, to receive the satisfaction 
which is due from the criminal, from the hands of a third 
person, though, perhaps, such satisfaction might be of itself 
equal to the offence, — he has always a right to punish the 
real delinquent. Secondly, because, neither from the holy 
scriptures, nor from tradition, is it clear, that any law or 
promise was ever made, by which we may be assured that 
vicarious satisfaction is accepted by the Almighty. Thirdly, 
because it is considered as a prerogative peculiarly belong- 
ing to Jesus Christ, to merit and satisfy condignly for others. 
5. It is still less an article of our Faith, and far less 
certain that the living can satisfy for the dead, except by 
prayer, and by way of suffrage. This is, in the first place, 
obvious from the silence of the Council of Trent, and of 
every other General Council ; and, secondly, from the di- 
versity of opinion on this point found amongst our divines. 
* The first opinion," says Suarez,* " is, that, by the pure mer- 
cy of God only, are we able to satisfy for the souls in purga- 
tory. This is held by Cajetan, Soto, Canus and others ; 
amongst whom, of course, Medina and Corduba are pre-emi- 
nently conspicuous ; since they even extend this doctrine, to 
the satisfaction of the living for each other. The real, and 
only reason that can be assigned for this opinion is the ab- 
sence of any thing like a promise or covenant on the part of 
the Almighty. Hence the church, and even the saints in 
heaven, are made to beg of Almighty God, that he would 
vouchsafe to receive their suffrages for the dead ; a pregnant 
sign that to accept them is not an act of justice, but purely 
one of mercy. The above is also confirmed, by observing 
that the souls in purgatory are no longer under the jurisdic- 
tion, and controul of the church, being merely amenable to the 
tribunal of God. Besides as it is far from being certain, that 
the Almighty has even promised to accept our satisfaction 
for the living, it is very likely that there is no such covenant 
in favour of the dead ; especially as we have no sufficient tes- 

* Suarez, I. t\ sect. 6. 



timony, or reason, for supposing that God has established 
any such order." He also observes a little later,* that " for 
this reason we are accustomed to say, both with regard to 
satisfaction, and indulgences, that they benefit the souls of 
the departed faithful, by way of suffrage, which by many, is 
considered as a clear proof, that this effect is by no means 
infallibly certain, nor due in justice from the Almighty. " 
And further on " If our suffrages," says he, " are sure of ob- 
taining their object, God must have pledged his word to that 
effect ; since without this there can be no real grounds for 
perfect security. 

6. It is not an article of our Faith, that there is in the 
church a treasure composed of the satisfaction of the saints ; 
and, consequently, it is not of faith, as I shall have occasion 
to notice hereafter, that indulgences, whether in favour of 
the living, or the dead, are granted, by making them partakers 
of that treasure. This may be proved, first, from its not 
being of faith, as I have already shewn, that we can satisfy 
vicariously for each other ; this not having been propounded 
by the Council of Trent ; nor, in fact, by any other General 
Council. The church, therefore, cannot be said to have 
proposed the above to our belief. I am aware of what Cle- 
ment VI. f has asserted, that, " to the infinite treasure, pur- 
chased for us by the merits and blood of Christy we know 
that the merits of the Blessed Virgin, mother of God, and of 
all the elect from the first to the last, are to be united. 
That this treasure will ever be consumed, or esren diminished, 
there cannot possibly be a ground of fearing, the merits of 
Christ being themselves infinite ; and also because the greater 
tlje number that are drawn to justice, by the application of 
this treasure of infinite merits, the greater becomes this ac- 
cumulated mass." J But, in the first place, there is not one 
word here that touches the question before us, the satisfac- 
tion of the saints. 2. The above is merely introduced inci- 
dentally by the Pope in his decree. 3. This decretal was 

* Suarez 1. c. f Clem. VI. in bis Extravag. Unigenitus. 

% Leo X. also declared against Luther, that indulgences are granted 
" ex superabundant meritorum Christi et sanctorum." Pius VI. also 
in the Bull Auctorem Fidei, n. 41. did the same. 



46 

addressed to the Archbishop of Tarragona, and not to the 
whole church. 4. After all, the Pope is not a General 
Council ; and, consequently the above extract is not suffi- 
cient, to establish an article of Catholic Faith. " Moreover, 
Suarez,* treating of this treasure, * says that, "besides Mai- 
ron, Durandus had also the boldness to deny, that there is 
such a thing in the church as a treasure, composd of the 
satisfaction of the saints, or any treasure of this nature, but 
that which Jesus Christ purchased for us. He assigns two 
reasons for his opinion: the first the same as Mairon's, name- 
ly, that the works of the just receive a condign reward in the 
persons of the just. 2. The superabundant merits of the 
saints, if any, would form this pretended treasure, but the 
saints had no superabundant merits ; since every, even the 
least meritorious action, was rewarded by Almighty God, 
and rendered useful and available to the acquisition of some 
recompense, or another, in their own favour ; and, conse- 
quently, as there is no such a thing as superabundant merit, 
nothing remains wherewith to form this treasure." The 
following is also an extract from the same writer.f We have 
already seen, when speaking of suffrages, that some theolo- 
gians assert, that the works, and suffrages of the just are 
theirs so peculiarly, and exclusively, as far as satisfaction, 
even of any kind, is concerned, that no just man, always, of 
course excepting Jesus Christ, can communicate them to 
another, in payment, and satisfaction for the punishment 
due to his sins. From this opinion, it follows as a necessary 
consequence, that the treasure of the church is not formed of 
the satisfactions of the saints ; and that an indulgence is not 
an application of any of these satisfactions, towards the re- 
mission of the temporal punishment due to sin. So far this 
opinion is nearly the same as that of Durandus ; but it may 
differ from that writer's in this ; that this opinion may be de- 
fended, and it will be still true to say, that the merits of the 
saints, in as far as they are able to obtain anything by impe- 
tration, or to merit it by congruity, may, in this sense, be said 
to form a part of the treasure of the Church. They may al- 
so, in the same sense, be said to be superabundant, since 

* Suarez, Tom. 4. Disp. 56. f Suarez, 1. c. 



47 



they can obtain from the Almighty, by way of merit, more 
blessings than would in reality have been otherwise bestow- 
ed on the Church, and her faithful children. This, in fact, is 
enough to reconcile this opinion with the Papal decrees ; 
since Clement, in the Extravagant mentioned above, speaks 
of merit, and not of satisfaction. These extracts are enough 
to shew the truth of the above deduction — that the existence 
of a treasure in the Church, composed of the satisfactions of 
the saints , is not to be admitted, as an article of our Faith, — 
that, in fact, our theologians are not agreed on this point. 

However, if those who maintain the existence of this 
treasure, merely mean, that the actions performed by the 
saints, during their mortal career, can, even beyond the 
grave, obtain many favours from the Almighty ; and, if it 
be in this sense only, that they are said to form a part of the 
treasure of the church ; our dissenting brethren even cannot 
possibly find anything to condemn in such an opinion ; sup- 
ported, as it is, by so many passages of holy writ. " I am 
the God of Abraham, thy jather, do ?iot fear, for I am with 
thee : I will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant 
Abraham's sake."* " For thy servant David's sake, turn not 
away the face of thy anointed."^ which means, according 
to the Genevese bible, do not despise, nor reject the prayers, 
which Solomon thy anointed king offers for the general good 
of his people : — words which, as clearly admit a treasure in 
the church, as any used by the Catholic theologians quoted 
above. This power of impetration is, by many of our wri- 
ters, called congruous merit ; whilst others, so far from ad- 
mitting of congruous merit for others, deny that we can even 
merit, for ourselves,, in this manner. We have seen, in the 
last section on merits, that Mestrezat admits our doctrine on 
the merit of good works, in the manner that I have explained 
it. Now I should be glad to know, in what our dissenting 
brethren differ from us, either on the subject of merit, — or 
satisfaction, — either for ourselves, or, by way of impetration ; 
as by prayer, for others, — or, in fine, on the spiritual treasu- 
ry of the Church ; — when once our real doctrines, on these 
subjects, are clearly discriminated from the mere opinions of 

* Gen. xxvi 24. f Ps. 131, 10. 



48 

private divines ? And yet what dissensions have been caus- 
ed by a mere misunderstanding of our tenets ! 

If, however, any one should wish to know my own private 
opinion, on the questions mooted above ; I should say, that 
I hold the same opinions on satisfaction, as on merit, — since 
the Council of Trent holds the same language of both ; and 
since the principles that must direct our judgment in both 
cases are precisely the same. Hence the opinion of those 
writers appears to me most probable, who held, 1, that our 
satisfactions are condign, and that this condignness results 
partly from the work itself, and partly from its being accept- 
ed by the Almighty. 2. That not only works proceeding 
from the love of God, but also others that spring from other 
virtues, particularly all penal actions, satisfy by impetration 
for the temporal punishment due to sin. 3. That the faith- 
ful can assist each other by way of suffrage, by undergoing 
vicariously the punishment due to another's sin ; — and that 
they thus satisfy, in the strict meaning of the word, which 
does not merely imply a gratuitous remission, but a real 
payment of the punishment that is due, — a satisfaction con- 
sequently which is more than impetratory. That the faith- 
ful satisfy in this manner, both for the living and the dead ; 
and that the satisfaction, in both these cases, is infallibly of 
benefit to those in whose favour it is applied, whether still, 
detained in the flesh, or suffering in purgatory, and that too, 
to the full value of the satisfaction offered. 4. That, con- 
sequently, we ought to hold, that there is, in the christian 
church, a treasure composed, not solely, nor even principally, 
of the merits and satisfaction of Christ, — for it is of faith that 
there is a treasure in the church of this character, — but also 
of the merits, and satisfaction of the saints in favour of 
others, and, that, in the strict meaning of the word satisfac- 
tion. For a complete and satisfactory proof of each of these 
opinions I must refer the reader to Suarez.* To enter into 
further details, would be foreign to the object of these pages, 
which is to lay before the reader a plain statement of our 
faith ; and to discriminate between the tenets of the church, 
and the opinions of individual theologians, — which I hope 
has been satisfactorily done in the preceding sections. 
* Suarez, Tom. 4, Disp. 48, sec. 2, 3, 5, 6, and Dis, 51, Sup. 1, 2. 



49 



§4. 
On Indulgences. 
Neither Pope Pius's creed, nor the Council of Trent de- 
crees anything more, than what I here subjoin, on the subject 
of Indulgences. The creed merely gives us an abstract of 
the doctrine of the council : in it we affirm that the power of 
granting Indulgences was left by Christ in his church ; and 
that the use of these Indulgences is highly beneficial to all 
Christians. The Council of Trent,* in its decree concern- 
ing Indulgences, delivers the same doctrine in these words. 
" Since the power of granting Indulgences was bestowed by 
Christ on his church, and since she has exercised, from the 
earliest times, that power which was thus divinely entrusted 
to her ; the Holy Synod teaches, and commands, that the use 
of them, as being highly beneficial to all Christian people, 
and approved by the authority of the Holy Councils, — be re- 
tained ; and the synod anathematizes those who say that they 
are useless, or deny that there is in the church an authority 
and power to grant them; but, in this grant, the synod wishes 
that moderation, agreeably to the ancient, and approved prac- 
tice of the church, be observed ; for fear, lest by too great a 
facility in granting these favours, ecclesiastical discipline be 
weakened. As to the abuses that have crept into this prac- 
tice, and which have given occasion to heretics to declaim 
against this valuable privilege, the Holy Synod, from a wish 
to correct them, ordains, by the present general decree, that 
all sordid gain, obtained by such grants, which has been the 
cause of so many abuses among the people of Christ, be en- 
tirely abolished. And as to other abuses, arising from super- 
stition, ignorance, irreligion, or from any other source, but 
which, on account of the multiplied corruptions, that disgrace 
those places and countries, in which they are found, cannot, 
without inconvenience, be denounced by a special prohibi- 
tion, — the synod charges every bishop to correct, with care, 
the abuses of the church committed to his care, — to report them 
to the first Provincial Synod, — that thence, with the advice 
of others of the episcopal body, an account of them may, 
without delay, be transmitted to the Sovereign Pontiff ; that, 

*Concil.Trid. Sess. 25. 
H 






to 

by his authority and prudent care, the remedies necessary 
for each particular church may be arranged ; that thus, the 
trust of dispensing to the faithful these holy favors may be 
exercised, piously, holily, and without abuse.'' This is all 
that the council decreed ; it follows, therefore, that the above 
is of faith, being proposed to our belief by a General Coun- 
cil ; — and, also, that nothing else but the above is of faith, 
since this is all that has been propounded by this, or by any 
Other aecumenical council. 

It is, therefore, an article of our faith, that there is in the 
church a power, received from God, to grant Indulgences. — 
This is clear from our Rule of Faith. However, it also 
follows, on the other hand, 1 : That it is not an article of our 
faith that, in the use or grant of Indulgences, as now practis- 
ed, the temporal punishment due after the sin has been par- 
doned before God, is remitted, either in purgatory, or in this 
life : nor even that the church has any intention, in these 
grants to remit this punishment,; or that it really and de 
facto is remitted.* For 1st, This is not proposed to our belief 
by the Council of Trent. Indeed, to determine what the 
church wishes to remit, is a mere question of fact, and can- 
not, therefore, possibly be an Article of Faith. 2. We find 
different opinions, in the writings of our theologians, on this 
subject. These opinions have been collected by many wri- 
ters, and among the rest by Suarez, who says,* " Some Catho- 
lic theologians have maintained, that by Indulgences the 

* It may be as well to observe, that the following proposition of Lu- 
ther was condemned by Leo X. " IndulgentiaB his, qui veraciter, eas 
consequentur, non valent pro remissione poence pro peccatis actualibus 
debitoe apud divinam justitiam....," and this condemnation was con- 
firmed by Pius VI., in his bull auctorem Fidei,"* against the synod of 
Pistoja, in these words "Propositio asserens indulgentiam secundum 
suam precisam notionem aliud non esse quam remissionem partis ejus 
p<tnitenti(E ; qua per canones statuta erant peccanti." Quasi indulgen- 
tia prseter nudam remissionem pcence canonicse non etiam valeat ad re- 
missionem pcenae temporalis pro peccatis actualibus debitce apud divinam 
justitiam. Falsa, temeraria, Christi meritis injuriosa, dudum in articulo 
19. Lutheri damnata "|| 

f Suarez, disp. 48. sect. 1. 
* Prep. XL, page 29. 



51 

punishment which remains due, to satisfy the justice of God, 
after our sins have been pardoned, is nowise remitted ; and 
that we are thereby merely freed from the obligation of un- 
dergoing the canonical penances, or those punishments 
which have been enjoined by the church. This was main- 
tained by Cajetan, who, however, confines his assertion to 
the actual practice of the church, without discussing its pow- 
er to establish a different usage/' " There is," observes Su- 
arezin another place,* "a variety of opinion on this subject. 
Some have imagined that, by Indulgences as actually now 
granted, the punishment due to sin is not remitted before 
God ; and think, that by these grants, we are merely exone- 
rated from the obligation of performing sacramental penance ; 
an opinion which has a certain degree of antiquity in its fa- 
vour, since we find it mentioned by St. Thomas and St. Bo- 
naventure, and implied in Albertus's definition of an Indul- 
gence, namely, that it is the remission j>f penances, which 
have been enjoined by the church. This opinion is founded 
on certain expressions in the canon law, which seem to favour 
it : as we often meet there with Indulgences said to be grant- 
ed from 'prescribed penances. And, indeed, from one of the 
decrees of Pope Clement,f it is clear that this is the common 
form in which Indulgences are granted ; so much so, that if 
Indulgences were granted without this clause, it would have 
to be understood and supplied ; since all such grants must 
be construed, and explained, according to the usual forms of 
Canon Law, — and such Indulgences, consequently, would 
only be a remission of the penances prescribed by the church. 
This view is, also, strongly confirmed by a form very com- 
monly used by the Holy See, in granting Indulgences, namely, 
we grant an Indulgence of seven years, or forty days, or a 
given number of forty days, an enumeration which clearly 
is regulated by the ancient canonical penances, by which a 
given degree of punishment was awarded to different sins. — 
Finally, the above may be confirmed by an observation al- 
ready made on the ancient practice of the church in relaxing 
her penances — since, as I noticed, it is not certain that, by 

*Suarez,disp. 50. sect. 3. De Indulg. 
t_Clem. Unic. de reliq. et verier. Sanct, 



52 



virtue of that relaxation, the temporal punishment due to 
sin was, at the same time, remitted at the tribunal of God. — 
Indulgences, were, at a later period, extended, on the same 
footing, to the penances which had been enjoined in the sa- 
crament of penance : but the effect of such Indulgences was 
no greater, nor more certain than in the case just mentioned ; 
and Indulgences, as granted now-a-days, are still, merely the 
remission of the penances prescribed by the church and her 
ministers." The reasons adduced by these waiters, as 
well as the weight and authority of their names, render 
this opinion beyond all, doubt, probable. Now, surely, In- 
dulgences, explained in this manner, cannot possibly but be 
admitted by every Protestant ; since they are nothing more 
than the relaxation of the old canonical penances, which no 
Protestant pretends to observe. Besides do we not see the 
penalties which the discipline of the dissenting churches im 
poses, very often remitted, and for a great variety of causes ? 
Nay, it is the opinion of some of our dissenting brethren, 
that, as often as sins are remitted by the ministry of their 
clergy, such sins are remitted by their ministers (these are 
De Moulin *s own words,)* without any punishment remain- 
ing to be suffered, either in this life, or in purgatory. The 
dissenting ministers, therefore, grant indulgences, and those 
too, most plenary, almost as often as they assemble in their 
places of worship. 

2. With regard to the power of granting indulgences, it 
is not of faith, that there is in the church a power to grant 
such Indulgences as actually will remit, at the tribunal of 
God, either in this life or in the life to come, the temporal 
punishment which may remain due after our sins have been 
pardoned ; or, in other words, it is not an article of Catholic 
Faith, that the church can grant an Indulgence, the direct 
effect of which shall be the remission of the temporal punish- 
ment, which is due to the justice of God, and which would 
otherwise have to be undergone either in this life, or in pur- 
gatory. This may be proved. 1. Because the Council of 
Trent passed no decree to this effect. 2. From the variety 
of opinions on this subject, among our theologians. The fol- 

* Du Moul. in Eras. p. 49. 



53 

lowing extract is from the works of St. Thomas :* it is an 
answer to this question which, forms this title to his chapter — 
can an Indulgence remit any part of our satisfactory punish- 
ments ? " We must grant, says he, — for this is admitted by 
every Catholic,- -that Indulgences are useful ; since it would 
shew a great want of piety to pretend that the church can 
establish a practice, to no use, or purpose. Some writers, 
however, assert, that Indulgences cannot remit that measure 
of temporal punishment which the Almighty has decreed 
must be endured in purgatory ; although they may free the 
penitent from the obligation of performing those penal works, 
which the ministers of God may have imposed on him, or to 
which he may be subjected by the canons of the church. But 
this opinion does not seem to me well-founded, because,&c." 
Therefore, though St. Thomas does not adopt this opinion, 
he does not denounce it as heretical. 3. None of the argu- 
ments of Suarez,f or, indeed, of any other theologian, when 
carefully examined by our rule of faith, and our deductions 
from it, prove that the above position is of faith, or, which is 
of more importance, — of Catholic Faith. 4. A positive 
proof of the truth of my proposition may be drawn from the 
very words of the Council of Trent. The council recognizes 
in the church a power of granting Indulgences, and such a 
power, and no other as was exercised in the earliest ages ; 
by the Councils of Ancyra, J for instance, Neoccesarea,§ 
Nice,|| Carthage,^ and of Agdes.** Now, on this subject, we 
have the following concessions, from Suarez. ? The Coun- 
cil of Trent declares, that the use of Indulgences has" been 
approved of by the sacred authority of Councils ; and the 
Councils of Nice, Carthage IV., Neoccessarea, Agdes, and 
Laodicea, are generally adduced in confirmation of this asser- 
tion. \ 7 et all that we discover, in the decrees of these synods 
is, that the Bishops always enjoyed the privilege of mitigat- 
ing the public and canonical penances, (which, in those days 

* S. Thomas, in Supplem. qu. 25. art. I. 

t Suarez, Disp. 49. sect. 1, and Disp. 50. sect. 2. 

$Conc. Ancyr. cap. 2. 5. 9. 21. 22. 

§ Concil. Neocses. cap. 3. || Concil. Nic. cap. 1. 12. 

f Concil. Carth. IV. cap. 75. ** Concil. Agath. cap. 60. 



54 

were inflicted on different sins, according to a fixed standard) 
in favour of penitents, as their lives and good behaviour 
seemed to require. We cannot, however, collect, with any 
certainty, from these councils that this relaxation extended 
so far as to mitigate or remit, in the sight of God, the tem- 
poral punishment due to sin. No argument, therefore, or at 
least, no convincing argument can be drawn from this 
source, which at most furnishes a kind of presumptive 
evidence, — a probable kind of argument from analogy deduc- 
ed from the power of the keys."* The same writer, after 
citing various passages from the writings of St. Cyprian, 
St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and adducing numerous 
testimonies from the General Councils, adds,f " from these 
documents, it is clear that it was an old practice, in fact a 
usage of the primitive church, to relax at times these penal- 
ties (the canoncial penances ;) and that this was sometimes 
done by remitting them after they had been imposed ; and 
at others, by absolving the penitent at the exterior tribunal 
of the church, without imposing any, or at most a mitigated 
penance for the sins committed. Now it is not easy to see 
how we can prove from these abridgments, or modifications 
of the canonical penances, that the use of Indulgences was 
the same then, as I mean to shew that it is in our days. 
For granting that sinners were sometimes, as a matter of 
Indulgence, reconciled by the prelates of the church, and 
admitted to her communion, without being subjected to 
some particular canonical, or public penance ; still it does 
not, on that account, strictly speaking, follow, that this par- 
don or relaxation freed them before God, from the debt of 
punishment which remained due to his justice,in consequence 
of their sins. In fact, the ministers ot the church, when 
they received a sinner into grace, and looked upon him as 
reconciled, without imposing any burthen upon him, did 
not consider him as liberated from the punishment of purga- 
tory, which he might have merited, but felt that it was still 
incumbent on him to satisfy in some other manner the justice 
of God ; or at least they supposed, and believed, that he had 
already fully discharged that debt, by the fervour of his re- 

* Disp. 49. sect. 2. f Suarez, 1. q. 



55 

pentance, or in some other manner." " It was by some such 
reasoning as this, (he adds a little later) that Cajetan was 
induced to maintain, that by Indulgences, only the penances 
enjoined by the pastors of the church are remitted, and not 
the debt of temporal punishment due to the justice of God. 
Though this be not true of Indulgences as now granted, 
it may have had some foundation in the practice of the 
Church, during the times of which I am now speaking, name- 
ly, before the pontificate of Gregory the Great. However 
this may be, I wish to be understood as thinking, that we 
have no positive evidence whatever, either from history, or 
from reasoning upon the nature of the thing itself, that the 
practice of the Church was not the same then as it is now ;— 
that the arguments, consequently, in favour of Cajetan's 
opinion are purely negative, arising from the want of any 
clear proof, in the monuments of those times, of an applica- 
tion of Indulgences similar to our own* This much, in my 
opinion, cannot possibly be denied, since none of the testimo- 
nies adduced above amount to anything like demonstration 
on this point." Now this admission of Suarez, coupled with 
the first part of my argument, drawn from the words of the 
Council of Trent, seems to justify me in considering the prin- 
ciples contained in this paragraph, as quite undeniable. 5. 
In addition to the above, it will be well to pay particular at- 
tention to this fact, that among the Theologians assembled 
at Trent, there were many perfectly well aware, that this 
question was warmly debated in our schools ; and that 
it was against this particular application of Indulgences, to 
the remission of punishment at the tribunal of God, that 
Protestants particularly reclaimed. Silence, on this point, 
consequently, is no small proof, that the Council was per- 
suaded, that it is no article of Faith, that there is in the 
Church a power of granting Indulgences, as remissions before 
God of the temporal punishment, which remains to be dis- 
charged by the sinner, — either in this life, or in Purgatory, 
6. Bellarmin, * in discussing this difficult question, states 
the above opinion, without pretending to condemn it as 
heretical; and merely says, I will prove in opposition to what 

* Bellarm, Lib. 1, de Inclul. cap. p. 7. prop. 4. 



56 

has been injudiciously asserted by some Catholics/' &c. 
Neither does Suarez, as we have seen in the above extracts, 
pronounce it heretical. In fact, there is not a single one of 
our Theologians that has ventured to do so ; — it is not, there- 
fore, an article of Faith, or rather it is not, and this is all 
that I want to shew, an article of Catholic Faith, that Indul- 
gences are a remission, before God, of the temporal pnnish- 
ment due to sin. 7. Nor can the practice of the Church be 
adduced in proof, or the opinion common among the faith- 
ful, resulting from that practice ; because, in the first place, 
as I have already shewn from Vasquez, it is not true, that 
all practices of the Church, even of the Universal Church, are 
a sufficient ground for an article of Faith, since the Church, 
in adopting a practice, sometimes does no more than fol- 
low an opinion that is merely probable, without proposing 
it as an undoubted dogma of Faith, And,in the second place, 
it is far from being certain that the Church, in her grants of 
Indulgences,* has really any intention of remitting the tem- 
poral punishment due to sin in the sight of God. Now, if 
this be the case, how can it possibly be pretended, that the 
present practice of the Church is a proof, that the power in 
question exists in the Church ? 

However I willingly subscribe to the following observa- 
tions made by St. Thomas,* on the position, which I have 
here advanced. " This opinion does not seem to me well- 
founded ; first, because it directly militates against a privi- 
lege granted to St. Peter, by our Saviour, in these words : 
' whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed 
also in heaven ;'f from which text it follows, that any relaxa- 
tion that is of effect, at the tribunal of the church, is also valid 
before God. Besides the church, by granting Indulgences of 
the character pretended by this opinion, would rather injure, 
than benefit the faithful ; since by absolving them from the 
penances enjoined by her ministers, she would thereby deliver 
them over, to the much severer punishments of purgatory. 
For these reasons, I am of opinion, that their effects are not 
merely confined to the punishments, which come directly 
under ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but extend, also, to the tri- 

* St. Thomas in suppl. 1. c. f Matt. xvi. 19. 



57 

bunal of the Almighty, and remit the punishment that may 
be due after contrition and confession, whether enjoined as 
a sacramental penance or not, &c." For a further and more 
complete proof of the existence of this power in the church, 
I would refer the reader to Suarez* who argues in its favour, 
from the practice of the church, not only at the present time, 
but also during several preceding centuries ; from numerous 
Papal Bulls, in which, in grants of Indulgences, it is express- 
ly specified, that the temporal punishment due to the justice 
of God is remitted. Now I grant that these arguments have 
their force ; but I cannot agree with the same writer when he 
goes so far as to assert, that the doctrine which they favour 
is of faith. I have already observed, and I now repeat it, — 
whatever Suarez may think to the contrary, — that such a 
practice is not a sufficient ground for admitting this opinion 
among our Articles of Faith. Just in the same way as a 
similarly universal practice does not prove that it is of faith 
that we can satisfy for others ; or that there is a treasury in 
the Church, formed of the superabundant merits, or satisfac- 
tions of the saints. In fact, I denied, in the preceding Sec- 
tion, that either of these above opinions is of faith, much 
les of Catholic faith, which, I must again observe, is the only 
object of our inquiry. Indeed we have seen it clearly proved 
by Vasquez, that an opinion, if it be only probably true, is 
sufficient to justify the Church in adopting a practice in con- 
formity with it; and such a practice we may look upon as 
good, and prudent. Now, as this is enough in other cases, 
why not also in these three, — vicarious satisfaction ; the ap- 
plication of the treasure of the Church, and of Indulgences 
in favor of the living, and, — as will be shewn more fully in 
the next paragraph, — the dead. Before closing this subject, 
I shall have occasion to shew, that this is certainly sufficient 
with respect to many particular Indulgences, which may 
have been granted without sufficient reason ; and yet, in 
granting which, we are not justified in doubting whether the 
Pope acted with prudence, and consequently, with propriety. 
3. It is still less a fit subject of Catholic Faith, or, in 
other words, it is not of faith, that the church can grant an 

* Suarez, Tom. 4. disp. 48. sect. 1. 2. 
I 



58 

Indulgence in favour of the dead, in the true sense of an In-* 
dulgence as applied to these souls, namely, as a remission of 
their sufferings ; and it is farther still from being an article 
of faith, that the church has any intention whatever of remit- 
ting these sufferings, except by way of suffrage.* For, in the 
first place, neither our creed, nor the Council of Trent, says 
one word on these points ; and, secondly, our own theolo- 
gians are not unanimous. " Some Catholics," says Suarez,f 
f admit that the Church can grant an indulgence of this cha- 
racter, (as a remission of punishment before God) but not, 
however, to the dead. Hostiensis, Gabriel, and Gerson, a- 
mongst Catholic writers, deny in plain, and unmodified terms, 
that Indulgences are of any use to the dead.J Indulgences, 
says Gerson, are granted and ordained, for those only, who 
subject themselves to the tribunal of mercy, to which we may 
have access till death, but not beyond it. For, he observes, 
the grant of Indulgences is an exercise of jurisdiction, now 
as the Pope has not been appointed judge over the souls in 
Purgatory, he has no jurisdiction over them ; — this belongs 
to Christ only, who has been appointed judge over the dead, 
and who alone prescribes the measure of punishment, to be 
endured by these suffering souls. " " Some Theologians 
think," continues Suarez,§ " that an Indulgence, even by 
way of suffrage, does not infallibly obtain its effect, but that 
this depends, in every case, on the free acceptance, and mer- 
cy of God. They argue, that if even our private suffrages 
in favor of the dead are far from being necessarily beneficial to 
them, how much more doubt must there be, as to the effect 
of Indulgences. Some writers go so far as to assert, that 
neither the sacrifice of the Mass, nor any other work can in- 

* Sixtus IV. condemned tlie following proposition : "... .Romanus 
Pontifex pcenas Purgatorii remittere non potest." .And Pius VI. in his 
Decree against the Synod of Pistoja, condemns a similar proposition. 
XLI1. "Item in eo quod superaddit, luctuosius adhuc esse quod chi- 
meraea istlioec applicatio transferri volita sit in defunctos. Falsa temera- 
ria, piarum aurium offensiva, in Romanos Pontlfices, et sensum univer- 
salis Ecclesia? injuriosa, inducens in errorem hsereticali nota in Petro 
<de Osma confixum, iterum damnatum in Art. 22. Lutheri." 

t Suarez, Disp. 49. sect. 1. $ Suarez, Disp. 53. sect. 1. 

§ Suarez. 1. c. sect. 3. 



59 

fallibly, and from its own nature and constitution, or, in 
scholastic phraseology, ex opere operato, free the souls of the 
departed faithful, from their state of suffering. And even 
that we cannot say, that God has made any promise to this 
effect ; though upon such a promise only, could an infallible 
certainty of the efficacy of our suffrages be based. This was 
taught by Cajetan, and Canus, and defended with even 
greater boldness by Corduba." To these extracts from Suarez 
I will add the following from Vasquez.* " Soto, Canus, and 
Corduba, are of opinion, that the sacrifice of the Mass, in 
every instance, infallibly obtains a remission of punishment, 
when offered for the living, but not for the dead, who are de- 
tained in Purgatory, except by way of suffrage. They do 
not admit the distinctions usually made between the various 
kinds of suffrage, but assert, that, in the same manner, as our 
prayers for the dead are only so far useful to them as ap- 
pears good to the Almighty, without any certain covenant on 
his part to remit, at our request, the sufferings of those 
souls; so neither can the sacrifice of the Mass, nor Indul- 
gences, in any other sense, or manner, be applied in their 
favor. And as they conceive, that Indulgences are less cer- 
tain in their efficacy, when applied to the dead, than when to 
the living, they also maintain the sacrifice of the mass. 

In laying down my proposition, I subjoined these words, 
" except by way of suffrage ,•" "it not being absolutely cer- 
tain," as Bellarminf justly observes, "nor admitted by all 
Catholics, that the suffering souls in purgatory can be bene- 
fitted by Indulgences." Now, suppose a Protestant once to 
admit the existence of a purgatory, it is impossible that he 
should, after that, have any reasonable difficulty as to grants 
of Indulgences, by way of suffrage, or prayer. For he be- 
lieves that we may pray for ourselves and for others, and that 
our prayers will be heard ; — this is clear from the following 
title to the form of prayer, prescribed to be said in times of 
pestilence — to obtain mercy offer up this prayer. Now, to 
believe this, is at once to admit that we can assist others by 
our suffrages ; and that God, by virtue of these prayers, 

* Vasquez, 3 parte, disp. 228. cap. 4. 
t Bellarm. Lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 14, 



60 

vouchsafes, in his mercy, to grant our requests. The Psalm- 
ist * prays thus to the Almighty ; u For thy servant David's 
sake, turn not away the face of thy anointed." Why then 
may not the Church supplicate the Almighty to grant to the 
dead, the remission of the debt of punishment, which may 
remain due to their sins,— offering up to God, for this end, 
the merits of Christ, and the pious works, performed by his 
faithful servants, during their mortal career ; and imploring 
his mercy, for the sake of that true David, Christ our Lord, 
and for the sake of the virtuous lives of the saints, — as So- 
lomon trusted that God would hear him for David's sake ? 
Or, in other words, for the meaning is the same, why may not 
the Church grant Indulgences, by way of suffrage ; and why 
should not God, who deigns to hear all other supplications 
of the church, and of the faithful, vouchsafe also to listen, 
in his mercy, to the petitions of the faithful, for the souls of 
their departed brethren ? Only call to mind my remarks on 
the remission of the sins of the faithful by the Dissenting 
ministers, which is so complete that it is followed by an en^ 
tire remission of all punishment also ; and it must be a mat- 
ter of surprise that they can possibly deny a power of grant- 
ing Indulgences to the Pope, whilst their lowest ministers 
claim this privilege to a far more exorbitant extent. The 
only difficulty, therefore, in the case, lies in proving, that 
there is a purgatory ; and that a debt of temporal punish- 
ment remains after sin has been remitted. But this is quite 
a distinct question. The above is all that is of faith, and 
all beyond it amounts to nothing more than so many proba- 
ble opinions. 

Of these opinions, the following seem to me the most pro- 
bable :-— J. That the remission of punishment, whether due 
from the living, or the dead, by virtue of a law established 
by the Almighty, is always granted as the infallible effect 
of the sacrifice of the mass. * This opinion/' says Vasquez,f 
* is common among divines, and is the only true one. 2. 
That the suffrages of the faithful are beneficial, according 
to a fixed and determined law, to the souls of the faithful 
departed. 3. I even think with SuarezJ that it is more 

* Psalm cxxxi. 10. f Vasquez ? 1. c. % Suarez, <Jisp. 53. sect. 3. 



61 

true, to say, that an Indulgence granted in favour of the 
dead, has its effect as infallibly as when granted to the living. 
This is St. Thomas' opinion, and was considered by Soto, 
as least liable to objection. The former of these writers as- 
serts that an Indulgence, when granted in the form prescribed 
for the purpose, is as beneficial to the dead, as one granted 
to the living." However, since my only view is to discrimi- 
nate what is of faith, from what is not, and to propose the 
former, to the belief of those who differ from us in religion ; 
and since the profession of such doctrines as are articles of 
Catholic Faith, at once makes them Catholics ; though no 
notice whatever be taken of other opinions, which, in fact, 
they need not know at all. I shall spend no more time in 
these questions. 

4. No jubilee, or indulgence granted by the Pope, or by 
a council, whether plenary, or otherwise, and confined to a 
specified number of years ; or particular, that is granted for 
certain particular reasons, or depending on the performance 
of certain specified works, is an article of faith ; or, in other 
words, the validity of no such jubilee, or indulgence is of 
that certainty which is essential to every article of Faith ; 
whilst many of these are merely probably valid ; and, others, 
which have a certain currency, have no other object but 
sordid gain, are scandalous, and as such, consequently, are 
by all means to be done away with. That it is not of Faith, 
that any particular Indulgence is valid may be proved, first, 
because no one particular Indulgence is specified in our 
creed, the Council of Trent, or any other General Council. 

2. Indulgences granted by Popes, or by councils, are nothing 
but so many practices, which I have shewn above are not, 
even though adopted by the Universal Church, a sufficient 
ground for an article of Faith ; since the only foundation of 
these usages may be an opinion, in itself merely probable. 

3. Indulgences, granted by the Popes, are still less of faith, 
even doctrinal points propounded by them, as I have already 
observed, not being of faith, and especially not of Catholic 
Faith ; much less consequently usages introduced, or con- 
firmed by them. 4. No conclusion is of faith, that is de- 
duced from two propositions, one of which has not been re- 
vealed, and much less if it be merely a probable opinion: 



62 

now I shall shortly prove this to be the case with all jubilees, 
and indulgences. The above position may also, in the third 
place, be proved from the authority of our own writers " it 
being the unanimous opinion of all theologians/' says Bellar- 
min* justly, "that an Indulgence granted, without a suffici- 
ent cause, is of no effect, in expiating before God, either in 
this life, or in purgatory, the debt of punishment due to sin. 
This is taught by St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Durand, 
Gabriel, and all modern scholastic writers. It is, however, 
disputed, for the grant to be considered as just, whether 
there should be a proportion between the work enjoined, and 
the Indulgence, so that the greater the Indulgence, the 
greater the cause ; — or, whether an Indulgence the most ex- 
tensive even, may not be granted for the performance of the 
smallest work. There are two opinions on this question : — 
the first of which teaches, that no such proportion is neces- 
sary, and that it is enough, that the cause be good ; that is 
to say, that the Indulgence be not granted, for the perform- 
ance of a work radically bad, or purely temporal and world- 
ly, useless or nowise conducive to the glory of God ; and 
that an Indulgence, consequently, is valid, if granted for any 
work whatever that tends to the honour of God, and the good 
of his church. This is the opinion of St. Thomas, Durandus, 
Paludanus, Valentia, &c. But, St. Bonaventure, on the o- 
ther hand, Gerson, Richard, Gabriel, Cajet an, Major, Soto and 
others are of opinion that, for an Indulgence to be considered, 
as granted for a just cause, it is not enough, that a work, in 
itself pious and useful, be enjoined, but that it is also requi- 
site, that it be proportionate to the Indulgence ; and that 
consequently, if a very great Indulgence be granted for a 
very slight cause, such Indulgence is not valid. For, they 
argue, if it were true that Indulgences are valid, when grant- 
ed, for any pious cause, or motive whatever; there would be 
no such a thing as a superfluous, or indiscreet Indulgence ; 
as there will always be some such motive at hand ; and, if 
this were the case, nothing could hinder the Pope from libe- 
rating at any moment that he pleased, all the souls of pur- 
gatory from their sufferings ; since it is to the glory of God 

* Bellarm. De Indul. Lib. 2, ap. 12. 



63 



that these souls be admitted, as soon as possible, to the joys 
of heaven. This opinion is not only the more generally re- 
ceived, but seems to me the more true ; so that, if for in- 
stance, a plenary Indulgence were granted for the recital of 
the Lord's prayer once, for the convertion of heretics, or for 
the contribution of a very small sum of money, towards the 
recovery of the holy land ; I should not consider either of 
these as a just cause, for so great a grant." Now it is in no 
case of faith that any one particular cause, or any one ac- 
tion in particular, in virtue of which an Indulgence, or ju- 
bilee is granted, is a just cause; or, that a due proportion 
is preserved, between the Indulgence, and the work enjoined ; 
it is, therefore, evident that we are never certain, that an In- 
dulgence, or Jubilee is valid. 

From what has been said above, it follows that the second 
clause of this fourth corollary istruebeyond all controversy — 
"that many, and indeed almost all Indulgences, are only pro- 
bably valid." It is, in fact, scarcely possible ever to know 
for certain, what this requisite proportion is ; and the more 
trifling the cause and the work enjoined, the less probability 
is there of the validity of the indulgence. This is the case 
with many Indulgences, such, for instance, as are granted 
for the recital of five " our Fathers," and the giving some 
small alms. However, we are not justified in blaming the 
Pope, for granting these Indigencies ; we ought, rather, in 
fact, to commend him for so doing ; a probable opinion, such 
as the first above mentioned, being quite enough to justify 
this practice ; and though these Indulgences may not be en- 
tirely valid, if the second opinion at least be true, still there 
is no harm done by the grant of the Indulgence, as the faith- 
ful are moved by it, to the performance of works of piety. 

Before I conclude this subject, I wish to observe with Bel- 
larmin,* "that though a just cause be always requisite, still, 
it is not the province of inferiors, to pass judgment on the suf- 
ficiency or insufficiency of such cause; it is their duty, in sim- 
plicity of heart, to consider it as just. It is well known, how- 
ever, that the Popes, in former ages, were exceedingly sparing 
in granting Indulgences." Nor ought the faithful to be deterred, 

* Bellarm. 1. c. 



64 

by this uncertainty, from their endeavours to obtain Indul- 
gences, since, in almost all human concerns, we undertake 
many things with nothing but a probability in our favour, 
and yet we act with prudence. The physician prescribes a 
medicine, without any imprudence whatever, which he has 
probable, but not certain grounds, for believing will be use- 
ful, or, at all events, certainly not hurtful to his patient. We 
go to law, we embark in trade, with merely a probable pros- 
pect of gain ; and without being by any means certain even 
that we may not lose our cause, or our goods by shipwreck. 
The Popes, for a similar reason, act with prudence in grant- 
ing and the faithful, in endeavouring to obtain, these Indul- 
gences. "There is, generally speaking," observes Bellarmin,* 
"no danger whatever of the faithful being deceived ; for as 
the Indulgence may sometimes not have its effect, from a de- 
ficiency on the part of the receiver ; there can be no absur- 
dity in supposing, that, in like manner, it may be invalid 
from some defect on the part of the giver. Besides the faith- 
ful know full well, that it is of faith that there is a power in 
the church of granting Indulgences, but not that it may not 
sometimes happen, that some particular Indulgence may be 
invalid ; or, in particular cases, not beneficial ; — and all pru- 
dent and well-regulated Catholics, whilst they receive the 
Indulgences granted by the Pope, do not neglect, at the same 
time, to bring forth worthy fruits of penance, and to satisfy 
to God for their sins. 

There is still a third clause in my fourth corollary ; — and 
this too is confirmed by Bellarmin. f "Some writers," says 
he, "amongst whom are Gerson and Soto, deny altogether 
that certain Indulgences, which promise the remission of pu- 
nishment for thousands of years, have ever been granted by 
any Pope; and they assert, that all such Indulgences aremere 
forgeries of the mendicants. It has been the custom of the 
Popes to confine their grants of Indulgences, to the same 
number of years as the church did her penitential canons ; 
which were sometimes for two, three, five, ten, or twenty 
years, or, at most, for a person's life-time, which seldom 
reaches beyond a hundred years. A person that really wish- 

* Bellarm. 1. c. f Bellarm. 1. c. cap. P. 



65 

es to know the true history of Papal Indulgences, must not 
seek it in the writings of our professed enemies, nor in ob- 
scure and miserable pamphlets, such as Chemnitz tells us he 
saw translated into the German language, and edited, with 
additions, at Nuremburg, which had been first published in 
Latin at Rome, though containing, observe, less matter. 
Let him not refer to such sources, but rather to the decrees 
of our Popes ; to the authorized documents of the church ; 
or, at all events, to writers who have a just claim to veracity, 
authority, learning, and probity. For no one can possibly 
doubt, but these obscure and anonymous publications con- 
tain many forgeries, or, at all events, many mis-statements. 
We never find any mention in writers, whose authority is of 
any weight, of Indulgences, either of several thousand days, 
or of thousands of years." Besides these, are many that have 
obtained a certain currency, which seem clearly forgeries, or, 
at all events, the authenticity of which is highly doubtful, and 
even scarcely probable, — which, however, it is not worth my 
while to mention here, — These also owe their origin to the 
mendicants to swell their gains ; and this, to the no smallscan 
dal of Protestants who have taken occasion, says the Council 
of Trent, from these abuses, to inveigh against the very name 
of Indulgences. And the Synod, in consequence, decreed, 
that all sordid gain, obtained by these means, which had been 
the fruitful cause of so many abuses among the faithful, 
should be entirely done away with. 

With this discrimination of what is faith, from what is 
not, our Dissenting brethren cannot possibly find much diffi- 
culty in admitting the doctrine of the Catholic Church on In- 
dulgences ; the misunderstanding of which has caused the 
most tragical scenes to be enacted in our days ; and was the 
unhappy beginning of their separation from the church. Let 
us propose nothing to their belief, but what is contained in 
our Profession of Faith, and the Council of Trent: let us 
not pretend to be more wise than the Fathers of this Synod, 
and the author of this Creed — Pope Pius IV. ; let us bury 
all other questions in silence, since the profession of what is 
propounded by these two authorities, is undoubtedly enough 
to make any man a true Catholic, on this point. 



66 



§^5. 
On Purgatory, and Suffrages for the Dead. 
On these subjects we profess in our creed, that we "firm- 
ly hold, that there is a Purgatory ; and that the souls therein 
detained, are helped by the suffrages of the Faithful." We 
also " profess, that in the Mass is offered to God a true, pro- 
per, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." 
In this section, I shall confine my remarks to the second of 
these propositions. 

The following is the decree of the Council of Trent.* "As 
the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit, has taught 
in her Councils, from the sacred writings, and the ancient tra- 
dition of the Fathers ; and this Synod has now recently declar- 
ed, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detain- 
ed, are helped by the suffrages of the Faithful, but principally 
by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, — therefore this holy 
Synod gives her commands to the bishops, to be particularly 
careful, that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, which 
has been delivered by the holy Fathers, and Sacred Councils, 
be taught, and held, and believed, and every where preached : 
that all abstruse, and subtle questions, which tend not to 
edification, and from which piety seldom draws any advan- 
tage, be avoided in public discourses before the uninstructed 
people : that uncertain things, or such as have the appear- 
ance of falsehood, be not allowed to be made public, nor be 
discussed : and that whatever may tend to encourage idle 
curiosity, and superstition ; or may savour of filthy lucre, be 
prohibited, as scandalous impediments to the Faithful. And 
let the bishops be attentive, that the suffrages of the living — 
the sacrifice, namely, of the Mass, prayer, alms-deeds, and 
other works of piety, which have been hitherto accustomed 
to be offered up for the departed faithful, be still piously, and 
devoutly continued, according to the established regulations 
of the Church." 

We know, therefore, according to our Rule, what is of faith, 
as being propounded by an oecumenical council; — whilst, 
on the other hand, the following opinions are not of Faith, 
because not confirmed by this authority. 



* Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. Decret. de Purgat. 



67 

1. It is no article of Faith, says Bellarmin,* that there is a 
true, and real fire in Purgatory, — of the same kind as our com- 
mon elementary fire ; — because this has not been defined by 
any of our Councils ; and though, in the Council of Florence, 
the Greeks openly declared, that they did not believe in a 
Purgatorial fire, still, in the Decree, passed in the last Ses- 
sion, it was merely defined, that there is a Purgatory, with- 
out one word being said as to there being afire there. How- 
ever, I deem it the most probable opinion for these reasons, 
&c." 2. "It is also a question," says the same writer, f 
" where Purgatory is, but the Church has defined nothing on 
this point. There are a variety of opinions," he continues, 
and after stating several, " the eighth, he observes, is com- 
monly adopted by the schools, and asserts, that Purgatory is 
in the bowels of the earth, at no great distance from hell." 
3. J As to the intensity of the pains of Purgatory, says the 
same author, though all admit that they are greater than 
anything that we suffer in this life, still it is doubtful, how 
this is to be explained and understood. Bonaventure says, 
that the sufferings of Purgatory are only severer than those 
of this life, in as much as the greatest suffering in Purgatory 
is more severe, than the greatest suffering endured in this 
life ; though there may be a degree of punishment in Purga- 
tory less intense, than what may sometimes be undergone in 
this world. This opinion I am myself favourbale to. 4. Nor 
is there anything of Faith, on the duration of the pains of 
Purgatory, and, "as this is a question/' says Bellarmin, § 
"so completely uncertain, it is rash to pretend to determine 
anything about it." 

Now, with this discrimination of what is of faith from 
what is not, it must be easy for the Protestant, to persuade 
himself of the existence of a Purgatory ; especially with 
these words of Calvin before him. || "It is neither right, nor 
useful, to enquire too curiously into the state of souls, be- 
tween the time after death, and their resurrection. Many 
torture themselves exceedingly with disputes about the place 
into which our souls are received ; and wish to know, whe- 

*Bellarm. Lib, 2. De Purgat. cap. II. f Bellarm. Ibid. cap. 6. 

% Cap. 14. § Bellaim Ibid. cap. <). |j Calv. instit. Lib. 3. cap. 2,5. § 6. 



68 

ther our souls are immediately admitted to the enjoyment 
of the promised glory, or not. Scripture is silent on these 
points, and which of our Doctors shall teach us, that which 
God has hidden from us? As the scripture wishes us to re- 
main in suspense till the coming of Jesus Christ, and bids 
us patiently await his coming, and refers us to that day, for 
the reception of our crown of glory ; let us keep within the 
bounds which God himself has marked out for us ; that is to 
say, let us believe that the souls of the faithful are received 
into rest ; and there joyfully await the fruition of the pro- 
mised glory ; and that everything will remain in this state of 
suspense, till Christ shall appear as the Redeemer/' From 
this passage, it is clear that Calvin admitted a third place, 
and one too in which there is a suspense, and delay ; but 
"hope, which is deferred, afflicteth the soul."* This third 
place is undoubtedly a kind of Purgatory. 

2. It is evident from the decree of the Council of Trent, 
what is of faith on the question of suffrages : — all, in a word, 
that is propounded, in the passage cited above, by that 
authority ; and it also follows, that none of the following opi- 
nions are of faith. 

1. However much the following opinion may be the more 
common and true, still it is not of Faith, as I have, indeed, 
shewn already, that the sacrifice of the Mass always obtains, 
in virtue of a fixed law and covenant, a remission of punish- 
ment in favour of the souls of Purgatory ; or that it is avail- 
able to them, in any other manner, than by way of suffrage. 
2. Nor is it of Faith, that the suffrages of the faithful are 
beneficial to the dead, by any fixed, and unerring law. The 
reason is, that the Council of Trent has decreed nothing on 
these points. However, I grant that it is the more proba- 
ble opinion, that these suffrages really are available, by a 
fixed, and certain law. 3. Nor is it of Faith, that the sacri- 
fice of the Mass produces this effect by virtue of the nature 
of the action, or, in scholastic phraseology ex opere operato. 
The council is silent on this subject ; " and," observes Vas- 
quez,f " our own writers neither think, nor speak, unanimous- 
ly about it." " Some theologians think, says Saurez,J " that 

* Prov. xiii 12. f Vasquez, Disp. 229. cap. 1. J Suarez. Disp. 48. sect. 5, 



69 



the sacrifice of the Mass is not an action by which, in virtue 
of a fixed, and infallible law, the souls in Purgatory may be 
delivered, ex opere operato, from their sufferings." 

The reasons assigned for the three preceding decisions, 
may be applied to this also. 4. Nor is it of Faith, that the 
remission of punishment is caused, by the application of our 
satisfactions to the souls in Purgatory. For, in the first 
place, the Council of Trent, says nothing about this ; and, 
secondly, our own writers disagree. " There is a first opi- 
nion," says Suarez, * " that asserts, in general terms, that 
not only is it possible, that our suffrages are beneficial to the 
souls in Purgatory by way of impetration, but that we can- 
not even assist them in any other manner. This is beyond 
all dispute, and a fortiori the opinion of those divines, who do 
not even admit of any other kind of vicarious satisfaction 
between the living, since it is a principle admitted by all 
writers, that our suffrages cannot possibly be more effica- 
cious for the dead, than they are for the living." 

On the Obligation of Human Laws, as binding the Conscience. 
In the creed of Pope Pius, IV. we declare, that " we 
most steadfastly admit, and embrace, the observances, and 
constitutions of the church : that we receive, and admit the 
received, and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church, 
used in the solemn administration of the different sacraments : 
we promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of 
Rome ; and also receive all other things that have been de- 
livered by the Sacred Canons, and General Councils." 
The following is the doctrine of the Council of Trent.f If 
any one shall say, that the just man is under no obligation 
to observe the commands of the church, let him be anathe- 
ma." can. 8. If any one shall say, that those who are bap- 
tized are free from all the precepts of the holy church, so as 
to be under no obligation of complying with them, unless, 
from their own free choice, they please to submit to them, 
let him be anathema." And finally, in the 25th session, 
" The holy synod exhorts and entreats all pastors, like good 

* Suarez, disp* 48. sect. 5. t Concil. Tridentinum, Sess. 6. cap. 20. 



70 

soldiers, sedulously to recommend to all the faithful, the 
observance of all the precepts of the Holy Roman Church, 
as also of all the regulations determined upon in this synod, 
and in the other General Councils, and to use the utmost 
care, that the faithful be particular in observing all those 
duties, which tend to the mortification of the flesh, as fast- 
ing, and the abstinence from certain meats ; as also, in 
complying with those precepts which are conducive t3 piety, 
as the devout, and religious celebration of the festival days ; 
and to put the faithful also frequently in mind, to obey those 
who have been placed over them ; knowing that if they hear 
them, God will reward their obedience, and if they despise 
them the Almighty will punish them."* This is all that the 
council has decreed on this subject ; and this, consequently, 
is the doctrine of the Catholic Church; being proposed to 
our belief, by a General Council. 

It follows, on the other hand, 1. That it is not of Faith, 
that the church, or rather that the laws of the church, and 
a fortiori that the laws of secular princes, can or that they 
actually, and de facto do find in conscience, under mortal sin ; 
or, to use the language of the 24th article of a Protestant creed, 
" so as to impose a yoke upon consciences." I repeat that 
this is not of Faith, and particularly not of Catholic Faith. 
The 24th article, consequently, of their profession of Faith, 
is not heretical, in which they reject all human inventions, 
which impose a yoke upon the conscience" Nor the 33rd which 
excludes all human inventions, and all laws by which it is 
pretended, that an obligation is imposed upon the conscience. 
Nor the following declaration of the confession of Augs- 
burgh, which asserts, that Romanists, under the New Testa- 
ment, require the observance of certain meats, days, dress, 
and such like, under the penalty of sin ; and that, from this 
principle, proceed those burthens, by which the eating of cer- 
tain meats is considered as defiling the conscience, and the 
omissionofthe " canonical hours," is pronounced a mortal sin. 
But whence have the bishops derived their warrant, to impose 
these traditions upon the church, as a burthen upon the con- 
science ? 

* Hebr. iii. 17. St. Luke, x. 16. 



71 

The above corollary may be proved, in the first place, from 
this, — that it is neither declared in our Profession of Faith, nor 
in the Council of Trent, that either the church, or the civil 
magistrate, has received the power of imposinganobligation 
under the penalty of mortal sin, nor that the above mention- 
ed laws, or any other ordinances whatever, whether ecclesi- 
astical or civil, are actually, and de facto binding in con- 
science under this penalty. This is clear, from the extracts 
from the council given above. 2 Though many theologians 
of great learning were present at the council, who were 
fully aware of the opinions advanced in the confession of 
Augsburgh, and also how much this question was controvert- 
ed in the Schools, still the council preserved the most pro- 
found silence ; which seems to amount to a tacit declaration 
that these points are not articles of Catholic Faith. 3. Soto 
and Castro assure us, says Vasquez,* that Gerson was of 
opinion, that no human or ecclesiastical law could enforce 
anything under the penalty of sin, unless an injunction to 
that effect had already emanated from a divine authority, 
and that human laws, even those of the church, can do no- 
thing more than declare, what has been already enjoined by 
the divine law. Some moderns do not stop here, but assure 
us that it was not merely Gerson's opinion, that no human 
law, not even a precept of the church can be enacted on a 
point that has not already been prescribed by the divine, or 
natural fV law ; — but they declare, that this was also defended 
by A Imam." Yet neither Vasquez, nor any other theologi- 
an, condemns this doctrine as heretical. 4. This position, it 
is true, is a deduction that follows mediately, as I snail have 
occasion to shew later — irom a revealed truth ; but I have 
already proved that a conclusion from premises, one or even 
both of which, are revealed truths, is not an Article of Ca- 
tholic Faith ; and, for similar reasons, a doctrine not ex- 
pressly defined, but simply deduced from a decree of the 
church, is not an Article of Catholic Faith. Now I have 
shewn that the position in question is not expressly defined, 
it is not therefore, on both these grounds, of Faith. 

2. It even seems to me, that we are nearest the truth in 

* Vasquez, Part 2. Disp. 154. cap. 1. 



72 

embracing Gerson's opinion, as reported by Almain, Medina, 
Driedo, Adrian, Castro, and stated by Vasquez,* that " no 
human law, whether ecclesiastical or civil, in as much as it 
is a purely human ordinance, and emanates from an authori- 
ty purely human, can bind the conscience under the penalty 
of sin ; an opinion which Gerson extends, if we may believe 
the writers mentioned above, to the natural law. The 
grounds of this opinion are, first : — that neither the natural 
nor human law can take cognizance o an object which is 
purely supernatural,- — they cannot, consequently, reach so 
far as to reward, or punish eternally, this being an object 
beyond human powers, and completely supernatural. 2. 
Besides no lawgiver can establish a law, and impose a pe- 
nalty for its violation, which penalty is beyond the jurisdic 
tion of the court in which he acts. 3. As no human law can 
take cognizance of acts purely internal, no human law can 
impose an obligation on us to perform such acts ; and as no 
human legislator, ecclesiastical or civil, nor even the law of 
nature has power to inflict an eternal punishment, it follows 
that neither can he impose an obligation on us, under the pe- 
nalty of incurring the guilt of a sin, which, at once, would 
make us liable to such punishment. 

3. However, in case a human law, ecclesiastical or 
civil, prescribe anything, which it seriously intends should 
be complied with, and not merely to counsel or direct its per- 
formance, — the divine law then steps in, which commands us 
to obey our superiors ecclesiastical and civil : and this di- 
vine law, which, under these circumstances, lends its sup- 
port, can, and actually does impose, an obligation under the 
penalty of sin — and even of mortal sin, and its consequent 
eternal punishment : — in other words, to transgress such a 
law would make us liable to eternal punishment. That we 
are bound to obey, first, our ecclesiastical superiors, is clear 
from the following texts of scripture :f — He that heareth you 
heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me ! Obey 
your prelates, and be subject to them, Sfc. 2. We must yield 
obedience to the civil authority, because/! he that resisteth 

* Vasquez. 2. 2. disp. 158. cap. 1. f Luke x. 16. Heb, xiii. 17. 

± Rom. xiii. 15. 



73 

ike power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that re- 
sist, purchase to themselves damnation. Be subject of neces- 
sity, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake. 3. To our 
parents, for St. Paul says,* children obey your parents in 
the Lord, for this is just. Honour thy father and thy moth- 
er, which is the first commandment with a promise. 4, To 
our masters, according to the advice of the same A.postles,f 
Servants, be obedient to your masters, that are your lords 
according to the flesh, doing the will of God from the heart. 
In fact, nature itself, says Vasquez, ^dictates that it is high- 
ly sinful to disobey our parents and superiors, in matters of 
importance ; disobedience to those who have authority over 
us, being contrary to right reason. In an assembly, in which 
there is a primacy of dignity, he continues,§ obedience and 
submission from all who compose that assembly, is a natu- 
ral consequence ; because if it could possibly be just to act 
in opposition to his commands, then must the greatest con- 
fusion arise among the other members, and in the whole 
body. Did ever even a Gentile teach, that it is not wrong 
to disobey our superiors ? That the divine law not only 
binds the conscience, but even binds it under the penalty of 
mortal sin, and its consequent eternal punishment, is clear 
from numerous passages of scripture ; from which source, 
also, we learn that God can inflict this dreadful measure of 
punishment. Whatever, indeed, is grievously contrary to 
the law of nature, is grievously offensive to Almighty God ; 
and destroys consequently, his love towards us, and essen- 
tially, and of its own nature, merits eternal punishment. In 
the manner, therefore, here explained, indirectly and medi- 
ately ; that is, the ecclesiastical and civil law, and the com- 
mands of parents and masters may impose an obligation on 
the conscience, under the penalty even of mortal sin, and the 
punishment of eternal damnation; not, indeed, of themselves, 
but dependently, and in consequence of the existence and 
intervention of a divine law; and, in this sense, and no 
other, can they bind the conscience. 

4. To human authority explained in this manner, and the 

* Ephes. vi. 1. f Ephes. vi. 6. $ Vasquez, Disp. 158. g, 2. 
§ Vasquez, Disp. 152. cap. 3. 
L 



74 



obligations imposed by it, Protestants neither do, nor can 
object. For, in the first place, they admit, that both the 
Church, and secular princes have authority to enact laws, 
and ordinances of various kinds ; and that parents and mas- 
ters have a similar power to a certain extent ; and that those 
who are under their authority are bound to obey. 1. This is 
clear from the texts adduced above, and from the very dic- 
tate of reason. 2. Their code of discipline prescribes many 
regulations, and enforces compliance by censures — such as 
forbidding the delinquent to receive the Lord's supper — ex- 
communication, &c. and these laws are so numerous as to 
occupy 14 chapters, embracing 251 articles, almost every 
one of which contains a distinct ordinance, or precept. Thus 
in article 16, chap. 5, those who resist the consistory, are to 
be 'punished by suspending them, for a time, from the recep- 
tion of the Lord's supper. In article 3, chap. 10, certain re- 
gular fasting days are appointed. In the 5th Article, it is 
forbidden to give public alms at funerals. In Article 27, 
chap. 14, it is declared, that all who shall either dance, or be 
present at such amusements, will be excommunicated : — In 
article 29, that those who play at cards, will be punished 
by some censure of the church. Various kinds of marriages 
are forbidden in art. 13, chap. 13, Thus, no one, is allowed 
to marry the woman with whom he had committed adultery, 
during the life- time of his own wife, or, as in art. 12, to 
marry the widow of his wife's brother. In art. 31, chap. 5, 
it is decreed, that whoever shall refuse to acquiesce in the re- 
solutions passed, at the national synod, shall be separated 
from the church. In article 8, it is agreed that the govern- 
ment of the church shall be regulated by the articles of dis- 
cipline settled at the national synod. In article 33, chap. 
14, is said, that it shall not be in the power of either private 
ministers, or of provincial synods, to change, add to, or take 
from, the settled articles of discipline, without previously 
taining the consent of a national synod. A national 
however, has power to establish whatever re^ 
pleases, thus by art. 32. " Its ordinances mt 
particular place, or church* In art. 33, ive receio. 
all such regulations, as tend to promote concord; anu ap 

each one in his proper sphere ; and in this we ought 10 fol- 



75 



low what the Lord has enjoined; and with respect to ex- 
communications, we approve of them, with their accompany- 
ing penalties, and acknowledge them to be sometimes neces- 
sary ; with respect to the civil power they declare in art. 39, 
that it is the will of God that the world be governed by the 
laws of kings, and in art. 40, that it is necessary to obey their 
laws and regulations . 

Nor do they pretend to deny, that we are commanded by 
the law of God, to obey our ecclesiastical superiors, the king, 
magistrates, and parents. They also grant, that it is sinful, 
and often even mortally sinful, to transgress the law of God. 
Indeed, according to Calvin,* " whenever an offence is com- 
mitted against the law of the Lord, the curse of the Almigh- 
ty falls on the delinquent ; every sin is mortal, as every sin 
is a rebellion against the will of God, and as such necessarily 
provokes his wrath ; all and every sin being a transgression 
against the law, against which, without any exception what- 
ever, eternal death has been denounced." Where then can 
the difference be between the Protestant and Catholic doc- 
trine? Protestants must grant, that there is a divine law, 
which binds the conscience, under mortal sin ; and Catholics 
teach, that it is only in virtue, and mediately by warrant, of 
this divine law, that human laws can bind the conscience, 
under mortal sin. 

On this point also, therefore, when all misunderstandings 
are removed, we find thatjwe perfectly agree. As to when hu- 
man laws really command, and what are these actual, and real 
ordinances, as distinguished from mere counsels, and direc- 
tions ; as also what laws are merely penal, — imposing, that 
is, an obligation under a specified temporal penalty, — all this 
depends on the intention of the lawgiver, and on the wording 
of the law, and has nothing whatever to do with questions 
of doctrine and faith. In the above remarks, I do not wish 
to be understood, as asserting that ecclesiastical or civil su- 
periors, parents or masters may command anything what- 
ever, that best pleases them. " The principle," says Vas- 
ques,f " on which new laws may be enacted by the Church, 
or by the State, is the same as regulates, and is observed in 

* Instit. Lib. 2. cap. 8. sec, J8, 59. fVasquez, Disp. 151. cap. 3. 



76 

religious orders in this respect ; — that nothing, in a word, 
can be enacted but what has for its object the preservation 
of the constitution, in its pristine, and original condition. It 
is, therefore, requisite, for the prudent enactment of laws, 
either for the Church, or State, to consider seriously, whe- 
ther a compliance with the law, if resolved upon, will be con- 
ducive to the object for which the government was establish- 
ed. Mere whim, or pleasure, is not a sufficient motive, or 
ground for passing a law. It is not, however, the province 
of the subjects, to pronounce a law unjust, or unsuitable, 
unless its injustice, or uselessness, be manifest ; in all other 
cases, the presumption is in favor of the legislator." To this, 
Protestants do not object, as is clear from the32d and 33d of 
their articles, quoted above ; and in which we also meet with 
these words : " those who are chosen to govern the church, 
let them consider what system, and method, they ought to 
to follow, in directing the body of the faithful ; being careful, 
however, not to go aside in any way from what has been or- 
dained by Christ, &c." This is precisely the same restraint 
that we say ought to be imposed on this exercise of authority. 
By]drawing a simple distinction, therefore, between a medi- 
ate, and a direct power to bind the conscience, our opinions 
perfectly coincide*: so that if, after this, our adversaries 
choose to disagree with us on this point , they must mani- 
festly contradict themselves. This clearly follows from the 
preceding observations. 

5. It is not of faith that we are bound, under mortal sin, 
to comply with a merely human precept ; we are, for instance, 
under no such obligation of hearing mass on Sundays, of re- 
ceiving the holy communion at Easter, &c. Observe the 
words, "by a merely human precept," because the above is 
not true of apostolic precepts — and our dissenting brethren 
have little or no objection to these latter observances. The 
proof of the above position is evident. 1st. The church does 
not propose any of these regulations, as revealed in the word 
of God. 2. The very fact of the precept being merely hu- 
man, shews, at once, that it can have no claim to being di- 
vinely revealed ; and if not revealed, how can it possibly 
be an object of divine faith? 3. So far from its being cer- 
tain that such a precept is to be complied with under mortal 



77 

sin, it has not even been revealed by the Almighty, that 
there is any such precept. Can any one, after this, possibly 
deny that there is no command in the word of God to hear 
mass on Sundays, &c. ? However, it is undeniable, 1st, that 
the above, and similar precepts, have been imposed by hu- 
man authority. 2nd, That there is a power in the church to 
command their observance, under mortal sin, — a power not 
direct and immediate, but secondary and mediate, as has 
been explained above. It is, however, necessary, that the 
church prescribe these observances, with an intention that 
they be really and strictly obligatory. 3. And from the 
common consent and understanding of the faithful, we know 
when the church does actually mean her precepts to be bind- 
ing : thus, for instance, we are sure, from the unanimous 
agreement of the faithful, that the fasts of the church are to 
be observed under mortal sin. Cajetan observes,* with re- 
gard to fasting, " I do not presume to assert, that this obliga- 
tion rests on the authority of a written law ; since I am not 
aware, that a person, who neglects to observe the fasts of 
the church, is declared guilty of a mortal sin, by any written 
decree ; so that, as far as any law is concerned, there is no 
mortal sin incurred by the infraction of the fasts of the 
church, provided this neglect does not proceed from con- 
tempt." "It is manifestly false to pretend," says Vasquez,f 
" that the observance of the fast of Lent and other Papal 
decrees, is not obligatory under mortal sin." This principle 
may be extended to all the precepts common to the church, 
as Annual Confession, Easter Communion, the Sanctification 
of the Festivals, &c. Nor will our adversaries ever be able 
to prove, from any text of Scripture, from the Councils, the 
Fathers, or from reason, that actions, which are prescribed 
by human laws, continue, after such injunctions, indifferent 
or adiaphanous. The contrary opinion has been clearly es- 
tablished by shewing, that there is a divine command to obey 
those that are placed over us. However, as to what those 
laws are, or how many human precepts in particular are to 
be considered, as truly and really binding the conscience, 

* Cajetan. In summa, verbo, " Iejunium." 
f Vasquez, Disp. 154. cap. 2. 



78 

and not mere directions and counsels, without implying any 
obligation ; or what laws are only penal, imposing, that is, an 
obligation under a specified temporal penalty only, or which, 
in fine, of these precepts, binds the conscience under mortal 
sin ; — all this depends on the intention of the lawgiver ; we 
are to be guided in our judgment by the language in which 
the law is couched, by the nature and quality of the precept 
itself, and other such considerations, which it is the office of 
the casuist to examine, but which are quite foreign to my 
purpose, which is to present to view, the doctrines which we 
are obliged to believe. Such questions as the above, being 
mere matters of fact, cannot possibly be articles of Catholic 
Faith. I will only subjoin two more observations on this 
subject, that Protestants may not complain of the burthens 
imposed on Catholics, in consequence of their belief on this 
point, — and may not, thereby, be terrified from returning to 
the one fold. The first is contained in the following extract 
from Cajetan :* "The intention of every ecclesiastical law 
is to promote the edifying of Christ* s mystical body,f and not 
to lay snares for the souls of the faithful ; and we are, there- 
fore, to beware of pronouncing, that such a multitude of pre- 
cepts are, by the laws of the church, binding under mortal 
sin, for fear lest we may seem to lay so many snares for the 
conscience. 2. So that, acting on this principle, we may 
lay this down as a general rule, that whoever, without being 
guilty of any kind of contempt, infringes against a positive 
precept,— from pure ignorance for instance, (not gross or su- 
pine,) or from some reason, which appears to him a suffici- 
cient reason for its non-observance, without any intention 
whatever of consenting to the violation of a precept, which 
was obligatory on him under mortal sin, — such a one, by so 
doing, does not sin mortally. Indeed, it is not the intention 
of our holy and just mother, the church, to punish these 
virtuous souls as if they were really her enemies, — nor do 
such, before God, incur excommunication. To use the lan- 
guage of Vasquez,J "There is no difficulty in considering 
those persons free from mortal sin, who have transgressed 

* Cajetan in summa, verbo, " transgressio praecepti. f Ephes. iv. 12^ 
X Vasque?, 1. 2. Disp. 158. cap. 6. 



79 



against a particular law, not from any contempt, but from, 
what appeared to them a cause sufficient to excuse from its 
observance, or from a real ignorance, not proceeding from 
gross and supine neglect. Neither the precept of fasting nor 
of hearing mass, is of so obligatory a nature, as to admit of 
no excuse if not complied with ; and a person, consequently, 
according to Cajetan, who should sincerely think that he has 
a sufficient reason to justify the omission of the precept, 
would certainly not incur the guilt of mortal sin." These, 
and similar questions, are discussed at length, by all our best 
casuists. 

6. I shall also add the following observation, with the 
hope of inducing our dissenting brethren more easily to as- 
sent to the principles laid down in this section. It is often 
objected against us by our adversaries, for the sake of causing 
disunion, and of rendering the Catholic religion more odious, 
that the Council of Trent forbids the perusal of the scriptures 
in a vulgar tongue. This is a mere calumny. The follow- 
ing is all that is said on this subject by the council.* " The 
holy synod, perceiving that the number of suspected, and dan- 
gerous books, in which erroneous doctrines are taught, and 
spread in every direction, has, in these days, increased to an 
intolerable extent, — has deemed it proper, that some of the 
Fathers of the council be chosen, and deputed to agree toge- 
ther, after a careful examination, what steps had better be 
taken with respect to these writings, and what censures 
ought to be passed on them, which resolutions they will re- 
port, in due time, to this council, — that the Holy Synod 
may the more easily separate this great variety of strange, 
and unapproved doctrine, as code, from the wheat of Chris- 
tian truth." Now is there one word in this passage, that can 
possibly be construed, as even alluding to a prohibition of 
the sacred writings, in a vulgar tongue? 

As to the 4th Rule of the Roman Index, which Du Mou- 
lin, and others falsely ascribe to the Council of Trent, that 
council had nothing to do with it. This rule was never re- 
ceived in France, and is consequently not obligatory there ; 

*Concil. Trid. Sess. 18. Tit. de Libr. dilectu- 



80 

c< for it cannot be denied," says Vasquez,* " that a law is 
not obligatory, when there is either a want of due promulga- 
tion, or when it is not received by the faithful, and this con- 
duct is connived at, or consented to by the lawgiver. Besides, 
in the same Index there is a 6th regulation, which prescribes 
that controversial books, written in the vulgar tongue, on the 
points in dispute, between Catholics, and Protestants, be 
not allowed to be indiscriminately read by all persons ; but 
that these also be put on the same footing as the scriptures 
in a vulgar tongue. Now, as it is beyond all doubt that this 
6th regulation is of no force in France, so neither is the 4th, — 
which, after all, does not absolutely forbid the reading of the 
scriptures in a vulgar language. " Let this question, there- 
fore, in the words of the Index, be, settled by the bishop, 
with the advice of the parish priest, or of each one's confes- 
sor, who will allow those to read the scriptures in the lan- 
guage of their country, whom they are convinced will not 
be injured, but will rather derive an increase of faith, and 
piety, from the perusal." These human regulations vary 
according to the different state of places, and persons. Af- 
ter all, we are nowise affected, by the above regulation, 
which neither proceeds from a General Council, nor has been 
promulgated, or received in France. The same may be said 
of many other similar regulations. 

7. Nor is there any obligation, imposed on any one as a 
Catholic, to submit to any laws whatever of particular con- 
fraternities, or to subscribe to them in any sense whatever, — 
whether the confraternity be that of the Rosary, or of St. 
Francis's cord, St. Monica, or of the Carmelite, Scapulary, — 
and the same must be said of the particular Bulls called 
sabbatina obtained in their favour. Nothing at all, in one 
word, is said about these particular devotions in our creed, 
or in the Council of Trent. Let not then any of our dissent- 
ing brethren be deterred by these practices from embracing 
the Catholic Faith ; nor pay any attention to Du Moulin's 
oft-repeated sarcasms, and invectives against these usages. 
His reasoning is purely that of a shallow sophist — a fallacy 
called by logicians an Ignoratio Elenchi : or a mistaking, 
or misstatement of the question. 

* Vasquez, Disp. 5(i. cap. 5. 



81 

§7. 
On the Invocation of the Saints. 

* r firmly hold that the saints reigning together with 
Christ, are to be venerated, and invoked, and that they offer 
prayers to God for us." These are the words of our Profes- 
sion of Faith. The Council of Trent, in the 25th session, 
explains this doctrine more fully, and explicitly. "The 
Holy Synod admonishes all those, to whom the office of 
teaching has been entrusted, diligently to instruct the faith- 
ful, relatively to the invocation, and intercession of the 
Saints ; teaching them that the Saints, who reign together 
with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for man ; that it 
is good, and profitable, suppliantly to invoke them, and to 
fly to their prayers, help, and aid, in order to obtain favours 
from God, through his Son Jesus Christ, who is alone our 
Saviour, and our Redeemer ; that it is an impious opinion 
which denies that the Saints who enjoy eternal happiness in 
Heaven are to be invoked ; or which asserts that they do not 
pray for man ; or that to invoke their intercession in our fa- 
vour as individuals, is idolatrous, or opposed to the word of 
God, and the honour of the only Mediator between God, and 
man, Christ Jesus ; or that it is foolish to pray either men- 
tally, or vocally, to those who are reigning in Heaven/ This 
doctrine being proposed by a General Council, is of Catholic 
Faith. 

On the other hand, it follows, 1. That it is not of faith, 
that the saints in Heaven hear the prayers of the living This 
is proved, 1. Because neither Pius's Creed, nor the Council 
of Trent, declares this, nor proposes it, at least expressly, to 
our belief. 2. Although there were many Theologians of 
great learning at the Council, who were fully aware, that 
Protestants denied that the saints really hear us ; and what 
is more, that they condemned the Invocation of the Saints, 
precisely on these grounds ; still the Synod abstained, in its 
decree, on the Invocation of Saints, from defining any thing 
on this point. May not silence, on such an occasion, and 
under such circumstances, be considered as a positive proof 
that the Council was persuaded that this question was not 
one of Faith. 3. Even granting, that this induction follows, 
as a necessary consequence, from the doctrine of the Coun- 

M 



82 

cil, on the Invocation of the Saints, that " it is gfooc?and pro- 
fitable to invoke them ;" still, as 1 have shewn above, corol- 
laries from scriptural propositions, or decisions of the Church, 
are not articles of Faith ; and consequently, though the 
Church has declared that we are to believe that the Saints 
are to be invoked, or rather, that it is good and profitable to 
do so ; and though it seem to follow, as a necessary conse- 
quence that the Saints must therefore hear our prayers, the 
Church cannot be said, on this account, to have defined it as 
an express article of our Faith, that they actually do hear 
us. Moreover, although it be revealed in the word of God, 
at least in the unwritten word, that the saints are to be in- 
voked, and it follows, therefore, that they hear Us, still the 
close connexion of these two points does not make this con- 
sequence, however just, and necessary, a revealed doctrine, 
or an article of faith. 4. And what is more, St. Austin* does 
not admit, that this consequence, so far from being neces- 
sary, is even just; and what is more strange, though he be 
certain, and clearly teach,f that the saints are to be invoked ; 
he is still doubtful whether they hear us. With much less 
reason can an argument be drawn from the practice of the 
church, to establish this point, as an article of Faith ; both 
because from the doctrine that the saints are to be invoked, 
as has been observed above, it really does not necessarily 
follow, that the saints hear our prayers ; as also, because 
many practices of the church may be founded on a merely 
probable opinion, as has, been already shewn in the preced- 
ing pages. It is, however, true that the saints really, and 
de facto do hear our prayers, which are revealed to them, 
probably, by the Almighty ; or made known to them in some 
of the various ways explained by St. Austin, and Gregory 
the Great. The reason why St. Austin had any doubts at 
all on this subject, arose from another question on which he 
had not made up his mind ; but which has since been decided 
in the affirmative by the Council of Florence ; namely, whe- 
ther the souls of the blessed are received into heaven, and 
enjoy the clear vision of God before the resurrection, and 
the last day of final judgment, — a doctrine which is generally 

* St. Augus. Lib. De cura pro mortuis, cap. 16. f !• c - ca P- 4. 



83 

admitted by our adversaries, though denied by Calvin.* Yet 
St. Austinf taught, and proved, that many saints after they 
had been received into heaven, and admitted to the enjoy- 
ment of the beatific vision, see all things, even those from 
which they are far removed, % as God will be to them all in all. 

2. It is not of faith, that the saints are our mediators, and 
not rather that this character belongs to Christ only. 1. Be- 
cause neither our creed, nor the Council of Trent asserts 
this. 2. The Fathers, and the schoolmen differ on this 
point, though in words only, by using the word Mediator in 
different meanings. St Chrysostom § employs it for a Being 
who unites in his own person two natures, the divine and 
human. St. Austin, || for him, for whom no one intercedes, 
but who intercedes for all ; so that these two writers teach, 
and justly, that there is only one Mediator, Christ Jesus. 
But other writers use the term in a much wider sense, and 
understand by it any kind of Mediator, or intercessor ; and 
in this sense they call both the living on Earth, and the saints 
in Heaven Mediators for those for whom they pray ; in the 
same manner as St. Paul says,^[ that the old Law was given 
by the Almighty into the hand of a Mediator, by which is 
meant Moses. 

3. Du Moulin ** most shamefully, and unreasonably ca- 
lumniates us, when he asserts, that in our Litanies we indeed 
say, " St. Peter, pray for us ;" but that when we name the 
Blessed Virgin, we do not say " Holy Virgin, pray for us," 
but that we address her in the same form as we do Jesus 
Christ. It is a calumny of a similar stamp, to assert, as the 
same writer does, that those who invoke the Saints, not only 
beg of them to pray to God for them ; but also believe that 
the saints, as St. Nicholas, for instance, can appease storms 
at sea, &c. This writer's works are full of such like calum- 
nies on all points at issue between us; with a view, of course, 
of causing an unfavourable impression, in the minds of the 
vulgar, against the Catholic religion. God forbid, that we 

* Calv. Instit. Lib. 3. cap. 25. §. 6. f Lib. 22. De Civit. Dei. cap. 29. 

% Hebr. xii. 6. § Chrysos. Horn. 7, in Epist. ad Tim. 

|| August, contra Parm. Lib. 2. cap. 6. % Gal. iii. 19. 

**..Iu Novit. Lib. 7, cap. 12. 



84 

should ever admit such absurdities as articles of our Faith : 
no, we abhor and detest them. To use St. Austin's words : 
" The Christian doctrine is one thing — the errors of weak 
minds another; — if any one fall into error, the sound doc- 
trine is advanced to correct it ; with a view, that either the 
error may be removed or avoided. " * It is another, and 
more refined calumny of Du Moulin's, that we are ordered 
to invoke the saints. This is false, as is evident from the 
quotation given above, from the Council of Trent, which 
merely says, that it is good and profitable to invoke them, 
without, however, ordering us to do so. A person, would, 
sin, who should abstain from invoking them, from a doubt of 
the lawfulness of the invocation ; provided always his doubt 
extended really to the question,™ hether they ought to be invok- 
ed. There are indeed some, who, from the particular duties of 
their state of life, are bound by precept to invoke them ; as, 
for instance, persons, who enjoy benefices, and who are oblig- 
ed, on certain occasions, to recite the Litanies of the Saints. 

4. The canonization of the saints is no article of Faith ; 
in other words, it is no article of our Faith, that the saints 
whom we invoke, for instance, St. Laurence, St. Vincent, St. 
Gervase, &c, St. Blase, St. Chrysostom, Ambrose, Dominic, 
&c, are really saints, and in the number of the blessed* 
There is an exception, of course, to be made to what is here 
said, in favor of those, who have been pronounced to have 
been saints, by the holy scriptures, — as St. Stephen, who is 
said, in the sacred text, to have slept in the Lord.f This is 
proved, 1, from the silence of our creed, and of the Council 
of Trent. 2. It is clear, that there is no evidence to prove, 
either from the written or unwritten word of God, that these 
persons were saints ; as they were all born, long after 
the sacred writings were penned, and the apostolic tradi- 
tions delivered. 3. Besides, it is not even an article of our 
faith, that such men were ever in existence, — and, therefore, 
much less are we bound to believe, that they really lived 
saintly lives, or were afterwards canonized. All these are, 
undoubtedly, mere questions of fact, and not of doctrine. 
4. Miracles performed during their life-time, or after their 

* St. August. Lib. 20. cap. 21. contra Faust. Manich. i f Acts vii. 57. 



i 



85 

deaths of which we find numerous instances recorded in the 
lives of the saints, are the chief cause of their canonization ; 
but as all these miracles have been performed, since the time 
of the apostles ; as not one of them is recorded in the sacred 
writings, and consequently not one of them is of faith ; how 
should a canonization, grounded upon them — a judgment 
of the church as to their sanctity, be an article of Ca- 
tholic Faith ! No Bulls, therefore, of their canonization, 
though they generally emanate from the Pope, as they mere- 
ly contain a question of fact, declaring that such a one is a 
saint, are anywise matters of Catholic belief. I may again 
observe, that neither the Pope, nor even a General Council 
:s guided infallibly in the canonization of a saint. The proof 
of this may be easily drawn from a principle, which I laid 
down, in our general rule of faith ; namely, that all Catholics 
are agreed that the Pope even in a General Council may err on 
mere matters of fact; which, as such, depend principally, if not 
wholly, on the means of information, and the testimony of in- 
dividuals : and I adduced the authority of Bellarmin in con- 
firmation of this position : — since he allows that the 6th Gene- 
ral Council was misled by false information, and erred, in con- 
sequence, in condemning Pope Honorius as a heretic. There 
is much less difficulty, of course, in allowing that the Pope a- 
lone may be misled by false information, and fall into error. 

But after all that has been said, the authority of these 
canonizations is very great ; and any one that should pre- 
sume to deny, or even doubt of the canonization of any Saint, 
after a sentence to that effect has been passed, and passed 
after a most scrupulous examination into the miracles, and 
life of the servant of God, would be exceedingly rash, and 
would deserve the censures of the Church. For, as I have 
already observed, great authority attaches to any doctrine 
that is promulgated ex cathedra by the Roman Pontiff, and 
greater to any of his decisions when presiding in a Provin- 
cial Council, especially when he proposes something closely 
connected with a point of doctrine, to the belief of the whole 
Church, as he does, when in his Bulls of Canonization, he 
proposes a particular servant of God to the veneration of 
the Universal Church, as a Saint. Though the decree of 
Canonization is not to be received as an article of Faith, 



86 

still, it is not on that account, improper to invoke the inter- 
cession of the Saint ; nor should we be justified in blaming 
the Church for invoking him, or in looking upon this prac- 
tice as of doubtful morality, — since we know that many 
usages, which have obtained over the Universal Church, may 
be founded on nothing more than a probable opinion ; and if 
these practices are to be respected, and may be followed 
without hesitation, with how much greater security may we 
proceed, in a case of Canonization, which puts the question 
of the sanctity of the individual canonized, beyond all doubt, — 
since we are sure for instance, on these grounds, that St. 
Francis is really a Saint, and happy in Heaven ; — and on 
this evidence, and certainty, it is clearly lawful, or to use the 
language of the Council of Trent, it is good and profitable 
to invoke the Saint that is proposed to our veneration. And a 
person, who, from particular circumstances, as the possessors 
of Benefices, is at certain periods bound to recite the Litany 
of the Saints would be obliged to invoke this Saint; nor would 
it be a sufficient ground for the omission, to say that it is 
no article of our Faith that he is a Saint ; because, we know 
that practices, and precepts, though grounded on merely 
probable arguments, may still subsist, and be obligatory. 

§8. 
On Images. 
With respect to Images, our Profession of Faith, merely 
says :--" I most firmly assert, that the Images of Christ, of 
the ever Virgin Mother of God, and also of the other saints, 
ought to be kept, and retained ; and that a due honor, and 
veneration is to be paid them." The Council of Trent* de- 
crees, that " the Images of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and 
of other saints, are to be kept, and retained particularly in 
churches, and that a due honor, and veneration is to be paid 
them ; — not as if we believed, that any divinity, or virtue 
resides in them, on account of which they ought to be reve- 
renced ; or that any thing ought to be asked from them ; or 
that any confidence ought to be placed in them, as was done 
by the gentiles of old, who put their trust in idols ; — but be- 

* Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. 



87 

cause the honor which is shewn to the Images, is referred to 
the prototypes whom they represent ; so that by the Images 
which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads, or 
prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ himself, and venerate 
the saints who are represented by the Images ; — a doctrine 
which has been sanctioned by councils, particularly by the 
second Council of Nice, in its decrees against those who 
opposed the use of Images. However, whenever the events 
and narrations of the sacred writings, are represented by 
painting, or sculpture, — a practice which is of considerable 
use to the unlettered faithful, — the faithful must be taught, 
that the Divinity is not thereby represented, from an idea 
that it can really be seen by our corporeal eyes, or its Image 
embodied in colours and figures." Such is the doctrine of 
the Council of Trent ; it is, therefore, an article of our Faith, 
that respect is to be shewn to Images ; this being proposed 
to our belief by the Universal Church. 

On the other hand, it follows, in the first place, that it is 
not an article of Faith, that the Images of the most holy Trin- 
ity, or of the persons of the most holy Trinity, the Father, and 
the Holy Ghost, are to be kept and retained, and to be honour- 
ed and venerated. 

This is proved, 1. Because there is no declaration to this 
effect, either in our creed, or in the Council of Trent, where 
all that we find laid down is, that if it shall happen, that the 
events, and narratives of the sacred writings, are represented 
by painting, or sculpture ; that the faithful must be taught 
that the Divinity is not thereby represented, from an idea 
that it can really be seen by our corporeal eyes, or its image 
embodied in colour, and figures ; — which is very different 
indeed, from defining, that they are to be kept, and venerated. 
And, although, it be a common practice in the church, to 
have these images, and to venerate them, that is, through 
them to adore God ; this practice is not a sufficient founda- 
tion for an article of Faith, because, as I have before shewn, 
all 'practices of the church, even of the Universal Church, 
are not a sufficient ground for an article of Catholic Faith, 
Such practices may rest on an opinion in itself merely pro- 
bable, as was proved in the same place. 2. Neither does 
scripture, nor apostolical tradition furnish any thing to this 
effect: it is, in fact, even probable that God forbad such 



88 

images to be made by the Jews, in that part of the com- 
mandment* which says " Thou shalt not make to thyself a 
graven thing," and more expressly in the following text: — 
" You saw not any similitude, in the day that the Lord God 
spoke to you in Horeb, from the midst of the fire : lest per- 
haps being deceived, you might make to you a graven simili- 
tude, or image of male, or female, t 

3. Although there were many Theologians of great learning 
present at the council, who were perfectly aware of the diffi- 
culties raised by Protestants against Images of all kinds, 
and that even many Catholic Theologians, as we shall see 
later, imagined that these particular Images in question, were 
forbidden ; still the Council abstained from deciding anything 
on this point, and contented itself with saying, that the images 
of the Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints are to be kept 
particularly in Churches, &c. May not the silence of the 
Council of Trent, under these circumstances be considered 
as a positive proof, that the point in question is no article of 
Catholic doctrine. " Some Catholic writers, says Vasquezf 
as Henricus, Abulensis, Durandus, Martinus de Ayala, de- 
clare it to be unlawful, to make any images whatever, of the 
Blessed Trinity, and assert, that the human nature only, 
which was assumed by the second person of the Trinity, may 
be represented. The contrary opinion, however, to this, is, 
to my mind, the more true ; but still not so certain as to be 
received as a dogma of faith ; although, supported as it is, 
by the common practice of the church, it cannot be denied 
without rashness : this opinion teaches, without any limita- 
tion whatever, that, considering the thing itself, it is lawful 
to represent the Trinity by painting, &c. and to depict the 
Holy Ghost under the form of a dove." This he proves at 
considerable length. " This opinion," he observes, " is con- 
firmed by the common practice of the church, for we see pic- 
tures of the Trinity at Rome and other places, publicly ex- 
posed to the adoration (veneration) of the people. And 
though the Council of Trent did not determine or define any 
thing positively on this subject, still it prescribes that what- 

* Exod. xx. 4. f Deut. iv. 15, 16. 

$ Vasquez, 3. Parte, Disp. 103. c. 3. 



89 



ever scriptural events are represented by painting, or sculp- 
ture, — (meaning such as contain representations of the Al- 
mighty, which it does not condemn, though it may not approve 
of them, as much as of those of the Saints and of Christ,) — • 
that the people be taught, that they are not to suppose that 
this is done to shew, that the divinity may be seen, by our 
corporeal eyes, but to lead us by these human means, to the 
knowledge of that incorporeal and powerful being." I per- 
fectly agree in all that is here said by Vasquez. 

2. That God did not entirely prohibit all use of Images 
amongst the Jews is so far from being an article of Faith, 
that we cannot be said to know anything for certain upon 
the point. "Many' writers," says Varquez,* in whose opinion 
I also join, "think that God, in the 20th chapter of Exodus, 
by a positive precept, not only prohibited among the Jews, the 
adoration of Images, as practiced by the Gentiles, and which 
was opposed to the law of Nature ; but even all use what- 
ever of Statues and Images. This is the opinion of Alexan- 
der, Albertus, Bonaventure, Richard, &c. It is true that 
some of these writers as Alexander, Albertus, Bonaventure, 
Marcilius, and Abulensis, confine this prohibition to images 
of the Almighty ; but the rest speak in general terms, and 
extend it to images of every sort. Abulensis has an opinion 
peculiar to himself; which is, that all images of God are for- 
bidden, even by the natural law ; but all other writers seem 
to agree that this was only forbidden by the old law." "As 
to the two figures of cherubim,f that were placed on the 
two sides of the ark, it may be answered with Catharinus, 
that these figures, or images, were made by the command of 
God ; who could abrogate, either entirely, or in part, a law 
which he himself had established : — or, it may be said, that 
it was not the making of images that was forbidden under 
the old law, but only all kind of worship and adoration of 
them ; and, by a necessary consequence, the erecting and 
placing such statues or images, in a situation naturally suit- 
ed to purposes of worship. So that, in this view of the ques- 
tion, no kind of honour was paid to the figures of the ehefu- 

* Vasquez, Disp. 104. cap 2. f Vasquez, 1. c. cap. 6. 

N 



90 

bim, or any other of the images which were in the temple. 
An image may be considered as set up in a situation suited 
for purposes of worship, when it is placed alone by itself, and 
not as a mere addition, and ornamental appendage to some- 
thing else/' 

3. As to the nature of the respect which is to be paid to 
images, it is very far indeed from being an article of our 
Faith, that an image may be adored: no, not even the image 
of Christ, much less, consequently, the images of the saints. 
The word adoration is not even once used in our Profession 
of Faith, nor in the decree of the Council of Trent ; nor, con- 
sequently, in that of Nice, which is followed, in this point, 
by the Fathers of Trent. This respect is sometimes, indeed, 
styled adoration by our divines, but this is merely a question 
about the propriety of the use of a given word. The people, 
it is more than probable, understood by "adoration," the 
highest degree of worship, the worship of Latvia ; and this, 
there can be no doubt, can be rendered to God alone, and it 
would be blasphemous to give it to any image whatever. — 
When then we say that we adore the cross, the meaning of 
these words is clear, from the extracts given above from the 
Council of Trent ; namely, that by the cross which we kiss, 
and before which we uncover our heads and prostrate our- 
selves, we adore Christ. 

4. Nor is it an Article of our Faith, that the respect 
shewn to images, is really a religious respect ; since it is not 
even of Faith that the respect which we pay the saints them- 
selves, as I shall have occasion to shew later, is really a reli- 
gious respect. 

5. It is still less an Article of our Faith, — though Du 
Moulin chooses to calumniate us, and say it is one, — that the 
Images of God are to be adored with supreme worship ; that 
is, with the same worship of Latria, with which we adore 
God ; — or, to use his own words, it is not of Faith, that "the 
images or representations of the Almighty, are to be vene- 
rated with the same worship, as the God whom they repre- 
sent. " This, may be proved, 1st, because such a doctrine is 
not to be found in our creed, — in the Council of Trent, nor 
in any other general council. 2nd. Because there are many 
problematical opinions advanced by various Theologians, on 



91 

this question, — on the nature, that is, of our respect in this 
case. The opinions are contained in the following quotation 
from Vasquez.* Some writers think, in the first place, that 
" Images are not only to be honoured on account of their 
prototypes, but that, considered even as the immediate and 
exclusive object of our regard, they are to be venerated, 
with a degree of respect, quite independently of their proto- 
types ; and to this respect, they give the title of honorary wor- 
ship ; and admit that it is of an inferior and distinct species 
to that which is paid to the originals, or saints themselves. 
A second body of writers agree with those just mentioned, 
in teaching, that whatsoever honour is shewn to an image, 
independently of the object which it represents, that this ho- 
nour, though shewn to the image on account of its proto- 
type, is but an inferior and improper kind of veneration ; but 
they assert, in addition, that when the image is no longer 
honoured, independently of its prototype, but conjointly with 
it, and considered as in a particular manner belonging and 
dedicated to, the original which it represents, the image is 
then to be venerated, on account of this accidental connex- 
ion, with the same kind of honour as is due to its original. — 
A third opinion, which I consider as the only true one, teach- 
es that the veneration which is shewn to the image, does not 
stop at the image, but proceeds to the prototype, or original, 
and that both the image and its type, are, at the same time, 
honoured with the same species of respect, — a connexion so 
essential, that no case can be conceived, in which the image 
may be honoured independently of, and considered as uncon- 
nected with, the object which it represents ;— and this, not 
merely because we are only to honour images on account of 
their prototypes as the remote and ultimate object of our res- 
pect, — but also, because whatever honour is shewn to an 
image, must not stop at the image, but must necessarily be 
directed to the object which that image represents, — and di- 
rected to it as the immediate and proximate object of our 
respect, though it is by the image, and in the image, that we 
shew our respect for this object" 
Such is the doctrine of Alexander, Cajetan, St. Bonaventure, 

* Vasquez, Di*p. 108. cap. 1. 



92 



and others : — and these writers, besides teaching as above, 
that the image, and its prototype may be honoured, at the 
same time, by the same act of veneration ; also observe, that 
an image is only capable of being honoured, and venerated, 
in as much as it is considered as representing, and closely 
connected with, an original, to whom this respect is due; and 
that, consequently, it is only to be honoured in conjunction 
with its propotype, with whom it forms the proximate, and 
entire object of our veneration. " This opinion, Vasquez 
proves at considerable length,* by arguments drawn from 
the Councils, the Fathers, and from reason. To the above, 
he then appends the following just observations ; — f " The 
name of Jesus, and all other sacred things, are to be ho- 
noured precisely in the same manner as images;" and, "in 
the sacrament of the Eucharist, the Eucharistic symbols ought 
to receive a similar kind of respect." " Major," he adds, J 
" thinks, that the cross, ought to receive the adoration of 
latria, not on account of its own intrinsic excellence, but 
because it happens that the ultimate object of our respect is, 
in this case, Christ ; Corduba admits that this kind of ado- 
ration may be paid to it, but only analogically ; — Durandus 
asserts that it may be shewn it on account of the recollec- 
tions, which surround this instrument of our redemption ; ; — 
and Alexander that the image of Christ, and not the cross, 
may be adored in this manner. Henricus, however, fancies, 
that the worship styled hyperdulia is due to the image of 
Christ crucified." So various are the opinions of different 
Theologians, on the manner, and kind of respect, which is 
to be shewn to images. But the Council of Trent, it has been 
seen, keeps clear of all these questions ; it preserves a pru- 
dent silence, and simply teaches, that a due honor, and vene- 
ration is to be paid them. None of the above opinions, con- 
sequently, are articles of Faith ; let them, therefore, be con- 
fined to the schools. To become a Catholic, there is no need 
of subscribing to any one of these opinions. Believe what 
the Council ot Trent proposes, and nothing more is required 
6. With this statement of our doctrine before us, it may 
be shewn that Bailie is perfectly Catholic, on the respect 
which is due to images. 
* Vasquez, 1. c. cap. 4, 5, 6, f 1 c. cap. 12. £ Vasquez, Disp. 109. c. 1. 



03 

§9. 
On the Relics of the Saints, — and of the respect to be shewn 

them. 
On this point, our Profession of Faith says, — " I firmly 
hold that the relics of the saints are to be venerated." The 
Council of Trent* " enjoins, that the bishops, and others, 
instruct the faithful, on the honor to be paid to the relics 
of the saints ; teaching them that the bodies of the holy mar- 
tyrs, and others, now living with Christ, which once were 
the living members of Christ, and the temples of the Holy 
Ghost, — and which shall be raised by him to eternal life, 
and shall be glorified, are to be venerated by the faithful. 
Through them the Almighty bestows many benefits on man • 
so that they who affirm, no veneration, or honor to be due to 
the relics of the saints ; or, that to honor these, and other 
sacred monuments, is useless, — are absolutely to be con- 
demned ; as the church has condemned, and does now con- 
demn them." This, and only this, is decreed by the Coun- 
cil ; and this, consequently, is an article of our Faith, be- 
ing proposed to our belief, by a General Council. 

But, on the other hand, the following propositions are 
not articles of our Faith, upon the same principle as was 
noted above when speaking of images ; namely, because they 
are not proposed to our belief by a General Council. There- 
fore, it is not an article of our Faith, 1- That relics are to be 
adored ; no, not even the relics of Christ, — much less, con- 
sequently, those of the Blessed Virgin, or of the saints. 2. 
It is not of faith, that they are to be honoured with what is 
strictly meant by a religious honour ; and not rather by a 
mere honour of dulia, or observance ; or some such respect 
known by any other title. 3. It is also far from being of 
Faith, that relics are to be honoured with the same, and not 
rather with a different species of respect, from that which be- 
longs to the originals whose memory they recal ; — nor is it 
of faith that they are entitled to this respect, as was observed 
with regard to images, — of themselves, that is in virtue of 
their own excellency ; or by their accidenta I connection with 
an object that claims our respect ; or, that this veneration is 

* Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. 



94 

due to relics analogically ; or that this is a secondary kind 
of veneration. This may be proved, 1. Because nothing of 
all this determined, or specified by the Council of Trent, 
nor by our Profession of Faith. 2. Because our divines ad- 
vance a variety of problematical opinions, on all these points. 
Vasquez has collected them in the following passage.* The 
same observations which have been made on images, must 
be applied, in every respect, to relics ; — namely, in the same 
manner as it is unlawful to honor images, when considered 
as totally unconnected with their originals, so neither the 
relics to be honoured on their own account, but merely from 
the connection which the mind perceives between them, and 
the saints, whose relics they are — the servant of God being 
in some manner rendered present to the eye of the mind by 
these remains. This he proves at very great length ; argu- 
ing particularly on the following principle, — that inanimate 
things, such as relics, cannot possibly, of themselves, be con- 
sidered as ever treated disrespectfully, and are, therefore, 
also as incapable of being treated with honor. There are, 
indeed, some writers who teach that honor may be paid to 
relics as such, without reference, that is, to the saint to whom 
they appertained ; and they assert that in fact, this is the 
only way in which we are to honour them. But others, as 
was noticed when treating of the respect due to images, only 
permit his honor to be paid to relics on account of their con- 
nection with the sainted individuals to whom they belonged. " 
I have noticed above that we are to honour images, and 
relics, pecisely in the same manner. And T think it best to 
say nothing more on the opinions mentioned above, as they 
do not belong to our articles of Faith. 

2. It is very far from being an article of Faith, that par- 
ticular relics, which are honoured in this, or that Church, are 
really the relics of the saints they are said to be, though they 
may be proposed as such to our veneration. 1. Because this 
is neither taught by the Council of Trent, nor by our Pro- 
fession of Faith. 2. Because this is a mere question of fact, 
depending entirely on a variety circumstances, — as the 
means of information, &c; now, it has been observed, that 

■f Vasquez, 3. Parte, Disp. 113. 



95 

all Catholics agree that the Pope, or even a General Council, 
may err on mere matters of fact ; which, as such, depend 
principally, if not wholly, on the means of information, and 
the testimony of individuals. The same must, of course, be 
said, and with much greater reason, of the judgment of pri- 
vate, and particular churches. 3. Because, if, as we have 
seen, even the practices of the Universal Church, may some- 
times rest on a merely probable opinion, with how much more 
reason, may this be the case with particular customs of a 
single church, when, as in the example before us, it proposes 
for instance, certain relics to the veneration of the faithful, 
or even actually venerates them. And as, under these cir- 
cumstances, a judgment prudently formed, is the] rule, by 
which our practice must be directed, it is enough that a par- 
ticular relic be reasonably judged, from a variety of proof, 
and evidence, to be actually what it is pretended to be ; it 
may then, with perfect propriety, be proposed to public ven- 
eration ; — and if it should happen not to be the relic of the 
saint it was said to be, or, in fact, not the relic of any saint 
at all, this would still not affect the general question as to its 
being a pious practice, to honour the relics of the saints. 
The case is precisely the same as the one already contem- 
plated, when speaking of the canonization of saints. Vas- 
quez justly observes,* that, because some persons may hap- 
pen to have relics of doubtful authenticity, it is no reason 
why we should not pay a reverential respect to those which 
we are certain, at least as far as human evidence and rea- 
soning can render us so, are really authentic, and genuine. 
So that, if any one should honour a small particle of any 
kind, from a persuasion that it really was the relic of a saint; 
he would not, even if he were deceived in his opinion, there- 
by lose the merit of his devotion. However, a prudent care 
ought to be taken in authenticating relics, before they are 
proposed to public veneration ; and this care ought to be 
more considerable than if they were merely for purposes of 
private devotion, or to carry about with us, which, of course, 
there is nothing to hinder us from doing. The following ob- 
servation is also extracted from the same writer, f " Those 

* Disp. 1 12. c. 1. f Dissp- J 13. cap. 4, 



96 

who touch the relics of Christ, or of the martyrs, with their 
rosaries, or other articles of value, and carry them on their 
persons, are not to fancy, that these things have derived from 
that touch, even a material virtue, or excellency, but simply 
that they have thereby acquired a claim to our respect, de- 
pendent on an exercise of the imagination ; in as much as 
they have now the power of exciting in our minds a remem- 
brance of Christ himself, or of his saints, and, consequently, 
of moving the will to venerate them ; — on these grounds on- 
ly, this practice, so far from being superstitious, deserves to 
be considered, as a pious, and Christian action. 

From this exposition of our doctrine, it follows : 1. That 
it is a pure act of folly in Du Moulin, to declaim so loudly, 
and idly, against certain relics, which he contends, in his 
usual theatrical matter, are not the relics of saints, as it is 
pretended. 2. That Daille is perfectly orthodox on this 
point, as well as on the question of Images. 

§ io. 

On the respect and honour due to the Saints. 

" I constantly hold, says our Profession of Faith, that 
the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honour- 
ed." The Council of Trent* simply says : — " We adore 
Christ, and venerate the Saints." 

It follows then, that it is not an Article of our Faith, 
that this veneration is to be called a religious veneration, 
nor, in fact, is this true of any specific epithet, which may be 
used to designate it. 1st, Because neither the Council of 
Trent, nor our Creed has proposed anything on this point. — 
2nd. Because our writers differ on this question. Vasquezf 
giv^s their opinions at length, and examines them one by one. 
"Marsilius,"J says he, "thinks that the honour which is shewn 
to God, and to the Saints, is an exercise of one and the same 
virtue, which is called latria, when referred to God, and 
dulia when to the saints, and that the only difference lies in 
this diversity of relation. But the true opinion is, that the 
virtue of dulia by which we honour the saints, is distinct from 

*Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. 
f Vasquez, 3 Par. Disp. 98. 99, 130. + Disp. 98, cap. 1. 



97 



that of latria, or the virtue of religion ; and that latria, or 
the virtue of religion, for they mean the same thing, is due to 
God alone. This is taught by Albertus, Durand, St. Bona- 
venture, and others. Our writers are not, however, agreed, 
whether the respect, which we shew to the saints, and to 
civil magistrates, is an exercise of the same virtue. Some, 
as St. Bonaventure, Albertus, and Gabriel, seem to maintain 
this to be the case, &c." 

From the discrimination of what is of faith, from what is 
not, it is clear, that Protestants neither do, nor possibly can 
differ from us on this point : for they do not pretend, that no 
honour, of any kind, is due to the saints in heaven ; since 
they grant, that we may honour, and they actually do honour 
individuals, who, on earth, lead pious lives. Drelincourt 
goes farther, and maintains, in a pamphlet, written expressly 
on this subject, that a religious honour ought to be given to 
the Blessed Virgin. He believes, consequently, more than 
he need do, to be a Catholic. 

§11. 

On the Presence of Jesus Christ in the holy Eucharist. 

In our Profession of Faith, we have the following declar- 
ation : " I profess, that in the most holy sacrament of the 
Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially, the body 
and blood, together with the soul, and divinity of our Lord 
Jesus Christ." The Council of Trent* teaches, that « if any 
one shall deny, that in the most holy sacrament of the Eu- 
charist, (that is, under the appearances of the sensible ele- 
ments, as we shall see the Council express it, in our next 
extract from chap. 1.) there is contained truly, really, and 
substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul, and 
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and, consequently, Christ 
whole, and entire ; but shall pretend that he is merely in the 
sacrament as in a sign, or in a figure or by his power, let him 
be anathema," And in the same place, after observing, 
in that f " In the first place, this Holy Synodteaches, that in 
the sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ is truly, really, and sub- 
stantially contained, under the appearances of the sensible 

* Concil.Trid. Ses?. 13. can. 1. f Ibid. cap. 1. 

o 



98 

elements ; " (bread and wine) the Council teaches, that 
" there is no repugnance between these two things, — that our 
Saviour, according to his natural manner of existence, should 
always be seated at the right hand of his Father in heaven, 
and that still he should be substantially, but sacramentally 
present, in many other places, amongst us, by a mode of ex- 
istence, which, though it can scarcely be expressed in w r ords, 
the mind, illuminated by Faith, can conceive to be possible 
to God, and which we are bound most firmly to believe." So 
far the Council. That a real presence, therefore, under the 
appearances of bread, and wine, is to be admitted, — as 
expressed by the Council, by the word " sacramental- 
ly* " — it is an article of our Faith ; since it is proposed to our 
belief by a General Council. But nothing but this ; nor 
anything different to this, on the reality of this presence, is 
of Faith ; because nothing but this is propounded by the 
Council. I will now make a few observations, on this most 
important, and most difficult of subjects, with a view to ren- 
der the belief of this doctrine of the Catholic Church, less 
difficult to those who differ from us in Religion. 

1st. Speaking of glorified bodies at the resurrection, St. 
Paul says,* "It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spirit- 
ual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual 
body, as it is written : — The first man, Adam, was made into 
a living soul ; the last Adam into a quickening spirit. Yet 
that was not first, which is spiritual, but that which is natu 
ral; afterwards, that which is spiritual." Hence the body 
of Christ, which is present under the Eucharistic symbols, 
may, in this sense, be called a spiritual and not a natural 
body ; and our Saviour, who is actually present in the Sa- 
crament, may be called a quickening spirit, and not made 
into a living soul For 1st, this is evident from the words 
of St. Paul. 2nd. "Because," as Vasquezf justly observes, 
" the body of Christ is present even in a small particle, and 
entire in the whole element, as well as in each part of it, just 
as if his body were a spirit." 3. Hence Christ is called by 
St. Cyril of Jerusalem,^ "the spiritual victim offered by the 
priest in the mass." 

* 1 Cor. xv. 44. 
t Vasquez, par. 3 disp. 187. cap. 2. % St. Cyr. Hier. Cat. 5. 



99 

2. Not only may the body of Christ, though really pre- 
sent, under the Eucharistic symbols, be called a spiritual 
body, and Christ himself a spirit ; but the body of Christ may 
be said to be present under the appearances of bread and 
wine, in a spiritual manner, or spiritually , and not in a cor- 
poreal and natural manner, or, which is the same thing, not 
corporally or carnally. This may be proved, 1st, because 
our Saviour is present, as a spirit, in many senses ; namely, 
as an angel is invisible in any spot whatever that we can fix 
upon, is impassible ; is alike entire in the whole form that 
circumscribes its being, and, in every part of it, being inca- 
pable of division, or of being broken into parts ; just in the 
same manner, is the body of Christ present, under the Eu- 
charistic symbols ; is invisible, impassible, entire under the 
whole element, and under every part of it, being perfectly in- 
capable of division, or of being broken. A corporeal mode 
of existence, or to exist corporally and carnally, is to ex- 
ist visibly, and to be capable of suffering, and of local exten- 
sion ; that is, of an entire presence under the whole external 
form, and of a partial presence under each part of it ; and to 
be, consequently, capable of division. The body of Christ, 
therefore, in the sense explained above, is present under the 
accidents, in a spiritual, and not in a corporeal or carnal 
manner : spiritual, that is, not corporally or carnally. 2nd. 
The mind feels an insuperable repugnance to saying that 
Christ was born of his Virgin Mother in a carnal manner, or 
carnally ; though we know that he was truly born of her. — 
Why then, may we not say that Christ is not carnally, 
though he is really present, under the Eucharistic accidents ? 
3. The Council of Trent, in the extract given above, declares 
that " Christ is always seated at the right hand of his Father 
in heaven ; and that still he is substantially, but sacramen- 
tally present in many other places amongst us : by a mode of 
existence, which, though it can scarcely be expressed in 
words, the mind, illuminated by Faith, can conceive to be 
possible to God, and which we are bound most firmly to be- 
lieve. " Why then, may we not also believe, that, though 
Christ is always seated in heaven, at the right hand of his 
Father, in a corporeal and carnal manner of existence, — this 
being a necessary consequence of a natural mode of exis- 



100 

tence ; — that he is, nevertheless, spiritually, though substan- 
tially present, in many other places, in that mode of existence, 
which the mind can conceive, &c. ? 

3. All that I have said of a spiritual body, and of a spi- 
ritual mode of existence, under the Eucharistic species, 
may be applied, for the same reasons, to the reception, and 
participation of the blessed sacrament; — namely, that Christ 
who, according to the Council, is eaten sacramentally, may 
be said to be received spiritually and in a spiritual manner, 
and not carnally, or in a carnal manner, though he is still 
received by the mouth of the body. This is evident after 
what has been said above ; — and the arguments there ad- 
duced may be easily applied here. To eat in a corporal and 
carnal manner, or corporally and carnally, is to eat as we 
consume other viands, — that is, by masticating, and dividing 
the flesh in our mouths, by tasting it with the palate, &c. : 
but we do not eat Christ in this manner, therefore, he is not 
eaten coporally, or carnally, nor in a corporeal and carnal, 
but in a spiritual manner, and, by consequence, spiritually. 
Observe, also, that the nourishment of the body is the effect 
of carnal eating, or of eating corporally ; whilst the effect of 
eating the body of Christ is grace, to serve as the nourish- 
ment of the soul ; — refreshing, that is, and strengthening it 
in the works of a spiritual life, so that this holy sacrament 
is the support, and nourishment of the soul, which is a pure 
spirit ; and consequently, on this ground, namely, from the 
effect produced by the eating of Christ's body, this mandu- 
cation may be said to be spiritual, and not corporal or carnal ; 
that is, effected neither corporally, nor carnally, as I have 
explained above. 

But to return to the sacred body of Christ contained un- 
der the Eucharistic species. 

4. It is not an article of our Faith, indeed it is erroneous 
to pretend that the body of Christ, contained under the Eu- 
charistic symbols, is, or can be said to be sitting, or lying, 
equal or unequal to a given body, or extent, even to himself, 
as sitting at the right hand of his Father in Heaven ; or that 
the body, in the sacrament, is as large, thick, long, or broad, 
as it was on the Cross ; or that it is present under the acci- 
dents, or is contained in them locally. Nor is it even of 



101 

Faith, that the body of Christ is as far as its quantity is con- 
cerned, present under the Eucharistic appearances ; that 
is to say, it is not of Faith that what is called the quantity 
of Christ's body is contained therein. This is proved, 1. 
because neither the Council of Trent, nor our Profession of 
Faith teaches this. 2, It may be directly proved, from the 
extract already given from the Council ; in which it is said 
that the body of Christ, is indeed present under the species, 
substantially, but still only sacramentally, and not accord- 
ing to its natural mode of existence. 

3. Because a spirit, for instance an angel, when present 
in any place, — or the soul when it animates the human body, 
cannot be said to be sitting, or lying, equal or unequal to a 
given surface, or body, and it is not, consequently, commen- 
surate to any space, or body. Now the body of Christ, or 
Christ under the sacramental species, is, and may, with 
strict justice, as I have shewn, be called a spirit, and there- 
fore nothing of the above can be predicated of his body in 
the Eucharist. 4. This may be proved, and at the same 
time explained by the following passage from Vasquez ;* 
" Amongst other properties of quantity, this is one of the 
principal, that every body, that possesses this quality, may 
be said to be equal, or unequal ; this flows directly from 
the nature of quantity, of which it is an essential mode, or 
property to be subject to measurement, since this is abso- 
lutely necessary, before any thing can be called equal, or 
unequal. Now, although the essence, and the mode of 
quantity, are found inseparably united, in the body of Christ 
in heaven ; in the Eucharist, this quantity is only to be found 
in its essence, and not in its mode. Hence, every thing 
which belongs to Christ, or to any other body, absolutely, 
and independently, and without relation, or regard to place, 
must necessarily coexist with Christ, or that body ; whilst, 
on the other hand, all such qualities as have a proximate 
relation with, and dependance on, place or position, such as 
the mode or property of quantity in question,-^as also all 
such qualities as constitute the very nature of local existence, 
such as that dependant, and relative property of quantity, 

* Vasquez. 3. Parte, disp. 187. c. 2. 






102 

which causes bodies to be called equal, and unequal, and to 
be considered as circumscribed, and contained in a given 
space, — such properties as these are not inseparable from 
the body of Christ, nor indeed from any other body in gene- 
ral. Hence, it follows, that though the body of Christ re- 
tains the essence of quantity in the Holy Eucharist, this 
property being independent of place and position, neverthe- 
less it has not that mode of quantity, which would render it 
capable of being considered as contained in a given space, 
or as equal to a given surface." The above observations are 
thus excellently applied by the same writer :* — "As to the 
quantity of Christ's body, this body does not occupy space, 
and maybe contained under a small accident of bread — may 
be entire under the whole species, and under each part of 
it, — not being impeded as has been said, by any modal quan- 
tity, since it is present, after the manner of a spirit, as of 
an angel, or the human soul, which is entire in the whole 
body, and in each part of it." 

From what has been said, it is at least evident, and this 
is all that I require, that nothing of the above is of faith. 
Vasquez,f in fact, observes, "That some Theologians assert, 
that the body of Christ in the Eucharist, is not, strictly 
speaking a quantity, though it has its quantity ; whilst others 
think, that it is present there without any quantity whatso- 
ever ;" and though these opinions may be false, still they 
serve to shew, that nothing has been defined by the church 
on this subject ; they shew, in a word, that it is not of 
faith, that the body of Christ, under the Eucharistic ac- 
cidents, is recumbent, equal, as great, thick, long, or broad, 
as it was on the cross, $c. ; since all this can only be predi- 
cated of quantity, and of that mode of quantity mentioned 
above. In fact, if we take the words, broad, long, thick, &c. 
in their common and popular meaning, as expressive of ex- 
tension, and the occupying of space, every one must see at 
once, that the body of Christ, under the Eucharistic species, 
is neither great nor broad ; or, at least, that it is not of faith 
that it is so. It is, consequently, a mere idle waste of words 
in our opponents to object to us the burning of the host, &c: J 

* Vasquez, 1. c. t Vasquez, ibid. cap. 1. $ Disp. 191. 



103 

"If it should happen/' says Vasquez, " that the host be 
burned or trodden upon, the body of Christ, though really 
present, under the accidents, would not, thereby suffer, nor 
would it be burned or trodden upon ; just in the same 
manner as the divinity, though every where substantially 
present, is not, when any thing is burned or trodden 
upon, thereby burned or trodden under foot." For in- 
stance, though the divinity is in the piece of bread eat- 
en by a dog, or a mouse, it does not follow, that either the 
mouse or the dog eats the divinity : in like manner, if it were 
to happen that a mouse or a dog were to gnaw, or eat the 
host, or rather the Eucharistic species ; though these animals 
might consume the accidents, they would not eat the body of 
Christ. And as it is not unbecoming in the divinity, to be 
substantially present in a mouse, or dog, or even in filth and 
dirt ; neither is it more unbecoming, that the body of Christ, 
if the accidents should happen to be gnawed, or eaten, as 
in the instances supposed above, should be present in those 
animals, even in their bowels, when the Eucharistic acci- 
dents are actually swallowed : nor is it anywise unworthy 
of the Divinity, when all things are properly understood, 
that Christ should be substantially present in inanimate 
things, as in the pix, on the altar, or in the tabernacle. And 
as these things do not eat, though they contain the body of 
Christ, so neither can the dog be strictly speaking said to 
eat the body of Christ, though it may eat the accidents, and 
though the body of Christ, be substantially present, under 
these accidents ; just as the Divinity is substantially pre- 
sent in the bowels of animals, and in every thing else. Man 
indeed eats the body of Christ, because he receives it as a 
sign, or rather as the cause of grace : but this is very different 
from the manner in which it is contained in the pix, or in 
the bowels of the dog; and, consequently, Christ's body 
cannot strictly speaking be said to be eaten by a dog, as it is 
eaten by man. Our adversaries ought really to make no ob- 
jection to this doctrine ; for suppose a dog shonld chance to 
eat a piece of the bread, used by them in the Lord's Supper, 
the dog would not eat the sacrament, because it does not 
consume the bread as a symbol, or sign. But, after all, the 
imagination cannot dwell without horror on these cases, and 



104 

1 shall spend no more time on them ; as they do not belong 
to our articles of Faith, not being mentioned in our Creed, 
nor by the Council of Trent. 

5. Vasquez tells us* that some Theologians teach that 
Christ is present in the sacrament, confined to a given space ; 
others, on the contrary, deny this, and teach that Christ 
cannot be said to be confined to a given space, and that the 
property of position, or distance, cannot be predicated of him, 
that he has, as the schools term it, no ubi, any more than an 
angel, when present, or speaking in a particular body. This 
latter opinion he conceives is the more probable. 

6. The following questions are purely scholastic, and 
nowise appertain to our articles of Faith. 1. Can Christ, 
as he is in the sacrament, be seen, not by a natural, but by a 
supernatural poiver, and agency, by the human eye ? Vas- 
quez, not only asserts, but proves that the body. of Christ as 
it is present in the sacrament, is incapable alike of " mate- 
rial action and passion." 2. Does the presence of the body 
of Christ in the Eucharist, depend on the existence of that 
body out of the Eucharist ; — is every affection of the body of 
Christ out of the Eucharist, also necessarily found in Chris fs 
body, in the Eucharist ? The two following questions which 
are moved by Vasquez,f are still less articles of Faith than 
the preceding. 4. Can the body of Christ be visibly present, 
in the form that circumscribes it, or in scholastic phraseology, 
circumscriptive ly, in several places at the same time ? 5. 
Still less do we believe that the church has defined, whether 
any other body, beside that of Christ, can be present, in 
several places at the same time, and present, not in an invi- 
sibly defined, but in an extended form. Vasquez J asserts, 
that not even the body of Christ, in this latter manner, can 
be present in different places at the same time. 

7. Much less do we believe, — in fact, I consider it erro- 
neous to say, that the body of Christ, which was produced 
in the womb of the Virgin, and will be preserved for all 
eternity in heaven, is reproduced, or preserved in the Eucha- 
rist, by the woi'ds of consecration : — it is false that the body 
of Christ is brought thither, and more false still that it de- 

* Disp. 190. t Vasquez, Diep. 192. cap. 3. % Vasquez, Disq. 189. 



105 

scends from heaven upon the altar, leaving heaven as 
it were, and traversing the air. And yet almost all these 
foolish opinions, with a view no doubt to delude the vulgar, 
are ascribed to the Catholic Church by our opponents. The 
above opinions are indeed considered, by some of our writers, 
as possessing a degree of probability, but our clerical slan- 
derers, perhaps through ignorance, but more likely from 
malice, declare, them to be articles of our Faith : they have 
an interest, we know, in fostering a disunion by which they 
live, but which is highly injurious to many souls, and to the 
peace of both church and state. The Catholic Church merely 
teaches that the body of Christ is, by the power of God, pre- 
sent under the Eucharistic species ; and this we believe be- 
cause " it is impossible for God to lye ;"* or, to use the lan- 
guage of the Calvinistic Confession of Faith, we believe that 
this is effected by the secret, and incomprehensible power, 
of the spirit of God, in a word, by his omnipotence. 

8. After this explanation of our belief, our opponents 
can have no real ground, and scarcely even a specious one, 
for continuing to dissent from us ; since the 36th article of 
their confession says " we believe that, by a mysterious, and 
incomprehensible power, He (Christ) nourishes, and vivifies 
us, with the substance of his body. If then they believe 
without doubting, that this substance is substantially present 
in the soul, — and this is necessary that we may be said to be 
nourished by it, — in whatever manner this may be explained 
as effected, whether by Faith, or by some other means ; — 
what can possibly hinder them from acknowledging this 
substance to be present under the Eucharistic accidents, 
and in the human body ? Especially as from the intimate 
union, that subsists between the soul and body, the substance 
of Christ's body cannot be present in the soul, without at 
the same time being present in the body. Moreover, the 
very same difficulties are to be solved in both our systems, 
each of which admits a substantial presence, or a presence 
of the substance of Christ ; so that if the subject be well 
weighed, there will not be found even a shadow of difference 
between the objections that mitigate against both our doc- 
ket*, vi. 18. 
p 



106 



trines. Daille,* at all events, grants that the Lutheran 
doctrine which teaches, that the body of Christ is really- 
present in the Eucharistic bread, carries with it, to use his 
words,rco venom, and is not prejudicial to piety: and in page 
31, of the same work, he also says that this doctrine is no- 
wise opposed to their salvation, and much less to ours. If so, 
why then cause so many disturbances ? Why not assent to 
a doctrine which, according to their own principles, if sub- 
scribed to, to-morrow, by their whole body, would be no ob- 
stacle to their salvation. Let them follow what is clearly 
the safer way to Heaven. Daill6 himself lays down this 
principle^ that a person, who believes that he might be 
saved in the Roman Catholic Church, and yet lives in a dif- 
ferent communion, can neither be looked upon as a good 
Christian, or deserving of toleration as a citizen, or even as 
a man of common sense. ,, And yet Daille" grants, that a 
person may be saved, and still believe in the real presence 
of Christ's body, under the Eucharistic appearances ; and 
that this belief is nowise prejudicial to salvation. Let then 
our Dissenting brethren embrace this doctrine. 

§12. 
On Transubstantiation. 
Pope Pius's Creed says, — " I profess that, in the most ho- 
ly sacrament of the Eucharist, there is made a conversion of 
the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the 
whole substance of the wine into the blood (of Christ), a con- 
version, which the Catholic Church calls Transubstantia- 
tion." " If any one," says the Council of Trent, J "shall 
say, that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the 
substance of the bread, and of the wine, remains together 
with the body, and blood of Christ, — and shall deny the won- 
derful, and singular conversion, of the whole substance of 
the bread, into his body, and of the whole substance 
of the wine, into his blood, the appearances only of bread 
and wine remaining, — a change, which the Catholic Church 
has most aptly called Transubstantiation, let him be ana- 

* Daille, Apol. cap. 7. p. 35. f Ep. ad. Mongl. p. 72. 

+ Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. can. 2. 



107 

thema." And again, under the article Transubstantiation, 
the Council says, * " As Christ our Lord declared, that 
to be truly his body, which he offered under the appearance 
of bread, it has accordingly been always firmly believed in 
the Church of God,— and this Holy Synod again declares, 
that by the consecration of the bread and wine, a change is 
made of the whole substance of the bread, into the substance 
of the body of Christ, and of the whole substance of the wine, 
into the substance of his blood, — a change, which has been 
aptly, and properly called by the Catholic Church, Transub- 
stantiation." The above is all that the Council decrees on 
this subject. This therefore is of Faith, since it is contained 
in our Creed, and is propounded by a General Council. But, 
on the other hand, nothing else is of faith on the subject of 
Transubstantiation, because nothing else is to be found in 
our Creed, in the Council of Trent, or in any other General 
Council. Much, however, beside the above, is ascribed to 
the Catholic Church, by the teachers of other creeds, with a 
view to foster a disunion, by which they live, — they utter 
calumnies, some of which are pure blasphemies, and others 
are naturally calculated to excite public abhorrence against 
our doctrines. I will subjoin a number of remarks in illus- 
tration of what has l^een said. 

1. It is not an article of our Faith, it is even blasphem- 
ous to pretend, that in this mystery, the bread is transub- 
stantiated into the body of Christ, in the same manner as the 
bread that we eat is changed into our bodily substance : nor 
is it of faith, that by transubstantiation the matter of the 
bread begins to exist under the form of Christ" s body, just as 
the matter of bread that is eaten, by nourishing us, begins to 
subsist under the form of the human body. This is proved, 
1, because the Council of Trent does not teach this ; it even, 
in fact teaches the contrary : — for if the above were true, 
then the whole substance of the bread would not be changed, 
into the body of Christ, but the matter, or nutritive part only 
of the bread would be thus transubstantiated, as is the case 
in the ordinary course of nutrition. 2. Because it would 
then follow, that the body of Christ would be corruptible, 

* Cap. 3. 



108 

capable of increase, and ammunition ; since these are the na- 
tural effects of the manclucation of bread, and of its being 
converted into our bodily substance. 

2. Nor is it of Faith, that Transubstantiation is effected 
by the reproduction, or consecration of Christ 's body. In the 
last section, in fact, I had occasion to observe, that the body of 
Christ is not reproduced, nor preserved in the Eucharist. Nor 
is it of Faith, that by Transubstantiation even a substantial, 
or accidental mode is produced ; which production, conserva- 
tion, or substantial, or accidental mode, or whatever that may 
be, by which the body and blood of Christ is rendered incom- 
possible with the substance of the bread and wine, and by this 
incompossibility removes that substance, and thus, by this 
means,Transubstantiation is effected. Indeed, there is, in real- 
ity, no essential incompossibility, between the coexistence of 
the body of Christ, and the substance of bread. What I have 
here said may be proved, 1, Because neither the Council of 
Trent, nor our Creed, mentions even any of these questions. 
2. Because both Vasquez, and other theologians prove that 
all, and each of the above opinions are absolutely erroneous. 
Thus Vasquez * proves, at considerable length, that it is 
false, that * Transubstantiation is a formal action, the effect 
of which, is the production of a substantial mode, or quali- 
ty." 2. That it is false, + "that Transubstantiation is a 
change, or a reproduction of the body of Christ : " or, 3, that 
* it is the changing afresh, or renewing of the body and blood 
of Christ in the Eucharist : n and this opinion he shews to be 
untenable, both from the very object of the sacrament, and 
because the words of consecration would not then be verified. 
As I agree with Vasquez, that none of these opinions are 
true, I shall not stop to enquire which of them is the least 
untrue : indeed this inquiry would be foreign from the plan 
which I have proposed to myself. It is enough that, from 
their variety, I have shewn, that nothing has been denned, 
on these points, by the Church. This is admitted by all our 
writers, without a single exception : not one of them, in fact, 
seems ever to have dreamed of asserting any of the above 
opinions to be of Faith. What are we then to think of those 
writers, ecclesiastics too, who presume to calumniate us so 
* Vasquez, Disp. 181. cap. 3. f 1- c. cap. 4. X 1. c. cap. 5. 



109 

shamefully, as to impute these opinions to us, as the doctrines 
of our Church. 

3. Nor is it of Faith, that the bread and wine are anni- 
hilated by the words of consecration. 1. Because the 
Council of Trent, does not declare this. 2. Because, as 
Vasquez* justly observes, " this question is nothing more 
nor less than a pure logomachy ;" — and he adds, " that some 
Theologians, whilst they admit a real transubstantiation, 
assert also that the bread and wine, — which are said by the 
Council, to be changed, — not only cease to exist, but are 
also actually annihilated. This was taught by Scotus, 
Occam, Gabriel, and Major; though the latter of these 
writers cautions us, not to be violent in defending this opi- 
nion, but to leave each one at liberty, to hold whatever opi- 
nion he pleases on this subject. The opinion, however, 
which I myself hold, and which has been long a favourite 
in the schools, that it is not correct to say that the bread and 
wine are annihilated in the sacrament ;" and this opinion he 
confirms at some length. 

4. There is still less reason for pretending, that the 
following questions, which are mooted, and argued by Vas- 
quez, are articles of Faith : in fact, they nowise affect the 
particular manner of transubstantiation which we are now 
considering. They are these :f 1. " Could the body of Christ 
have been rendered present in the sacrament, without the 
substance of bread being changed into the substance of 
Christ's body?" " On this point," says he, " there are many 
opinions in the schools, &c. :" and he then proceeds to men- 
tion them. 2. % " Are all substances capable of being changed 
into other substances ? The schoolmen disagree, &c." From 
our rule of Faith, it is clear, that the above are not articles 
of our Faith. 

.5 What then, it may be asked, is really meant by the 
word transubstantiation — in what does it consist ? I ans- 
wer that on this point, we must not abandon, but must con- 
tent ourselves with adhering closely to the words of the 
Council of Trent, which I have cited above ; and not wish 

* Vasquez, Disp. 183. cap. 1. 
f Vasquez, Disp. S2. $ Vasqoez, Disp. 184. 



110 



to be more wise than it behoveth, but to be wise unto sobriety. 
I will, however, subjoin Vasquez's explanation of the words 
of the council, without of course pretending, that his deduc- 
tions from these words, are articles of our Faith. But any 
one that is willing to admit transubstantiation, in the sense 
in which this writer explains it, though he reject all other 
explanations whatever, believes all that can be required of 
him as a Catholic. No one can have any great objection to 
it, as the doctrine of transubstantiation, as it is explained by 
this writer, really does not present any real difficulty. " As 
I have shewn," says he, * " all the above opinions to be un- 
tenable, it is now my duty to lay before the reader, the ex- 
planation which I myself consider true, and which I think 
no one at least will deny was taught by the older scholastics. 
And it is this : that the formal manner of transubstantiation 
does not consist, either in a change, or in a reproduction of 
anything, — but is a relation of order, between the sub- 
stance, which ceases to exist, and that substance into which 
it passes in ceasing to exist : — a conversion, or transubstan- 
tiation, to which we have no parallel in any other conver- 
sion, or action whatever." " Let us bear in mind," he 
continues,t "what has been said above, that the significa- 
tion of the words of consecration is such, that the verifica- 
tion of these words, requires not only that the body, and 
blood of Christ be really present, under the accidents, but 
also that the substance of the bread and wine entirely cease 
to exist. Instituted as were these words by Christ him- 
self, and pronounced in his name, they must be absolutely 
true ; but this cannot be, without causing the body and 
blood of Christ to be present under the accidents, and de- 
stroying the substance of the bread. 

Our Blessed Lord might have caused his body to be 
present, and the bread to cease to exist, by making use of a 
different form of words — by a formulary, part of which 
might be expressive of the presence of the body and blood 
of Christ, and another part signify that the bread ceases to 
exist : — thus, if Christ, or a priest in his name, were to pro 
nounce these words " Let this be my body, and be no longer 

* Vasquez, Disp. 18. cap. 11. f L c. cap. 12. 



Ill 

bread,", or, " let this be no longer bread, and let it be my 
body," the effects specified above would have followed. A 
similar formulary might also have been used in consecrating 
the wine. Yet, although, in this case, the effect would be 
the same as it now is, as far as the real presence of the 
body and blood of Christ, and the destruction of the sub- 
stance of the bread are concerned, still this effect would be 
produced ia a different manner. For, in this case, neither 
Christ, nor the priest could be said to destroy the bread, by 
causing the body of Christ to be present, or by destroying 
the substance of the bread, to cause Christ to be [present, 
but they ought then to be said to perform two distinct ac- 
tions, namely, that they cause the body of Christ to be pre- 
sent, and also destroy the substance of the bread. Christ 
really would be present, and the bread really cease to sub- 
sist, since the signification of the words thus far is the same ; 
but there is this difference in the form established by Christ, 
and the one which we have supposed, by which two distinct 
effects, are produced ; that the expressions which cause one 
of these effects, would not also cause the other ; — the words 
would be really verified when one of the effects only was 
produced, without the second being required by them, as a 
necessary consequence ; these effects would, in a word, co- 
exist, as the very form of the words shews, but only as an 
accidental consequence, or, as it is styled, by concomitance. 
Whilst, by virtue of our present form of consecration, though 
it is not specified that the bread and wine cease to subsist, 
these two effects are produced in such a manner, that, though 
only one is mentioned, — the presence, namely, of the body 
and blood of Christ, — still this is mentioned in such a man- 
ner, that the words, which cause the body and blood of 
Christ to be present, necessarily require that the bread and 
wine cease to subsist. The bread ceases to exist as a neces- 
sary consequence of the presence of Christ's body, as is 
clearly signified, by the words of consecration ; and a priest, 
consequently, when he pronounces those words, may be, 
strictly speaking, said to cause the body and blood of Christ 
to be present, and, by virtue of the real presence, expressed 
by the accustomed form of consecration, to destroy the 
bread." 



112 

K The accidents," he also observes,* " are, primarily at 
least, destined to point out the peculiar substance to which 
they are united, but this only as long as that substance real- 
ly exists ; if this cease, they are not destined to point out any 
other : a person, consequently, who should wish to indicate 
any particular substance or body, in which God is really pre- 
sent, would not express himself correctly, if he were to say, 
this is God; or, to give another instance, if an Angel were 
present in a given substance or body, it would not be a pro- 
per, or a correct form of expression, to draw attention to this 
fact, by saying, this is an Angel. To speak with propriety 
and truth, we ought to say, here is God, or, here is an Angel; 
that is to say, God, or an Angel, is in this place, or body. 
For the demonstrative pronoun this, though applied to the 
sensible accidents, is not intended to point out the accidents, 
but the substance that is under them, or to which they are 
united, and this is so far its primary, and even exclusive ob- 
ject, that as long as the natural subject of these accidents 
subsists, no other substance can be indicated by the pronoun. 
When, however, the subject of these accidents no longer 
subsists, but another substance exists under them ; this se- 
cond substance is then, with propriety, and even necessarily, 
indicated, by the pronoun. When, therefore, Christ took 
bread, and declared that what he offered up under the ap- 
pearances of bread, was truly his body ; and when he took 
the chalice, and declared, that what he offered up, under the 
appearances of wine, was his blood ; as he clearly could not 
have applied thsse expressions, with any truth, to the sub- 
stances of bread and wine, nor even, as I have shewn above, 
to his natural body and blood, if these were united to the 
substance of bread and wine, these substances being nowise 
destroyed, — and both the substance of his body and blood, 
and of the bread and wine consequently being contained un- 
der the same accidents ; it necessarily follows, that the sub- 
stance of the bread and wine was destroyed, by the words of 
our Saviour; and that the substance of his body and blood 
alone remained under the appearances of bread and wine. 
This reasoning most powerfully proves the destruction of the 

* Vasquez, Disp. 180. cap. 4. 



113 

substances of bread and wine, which is the point that alone 
now engages our attention, as I have already dwelt suffi- 
ciently on the real presence." To sum all up in one word ; 
the doctrine of Transubstantiation adds nothing to that of 
the real presence of Christ, but this, — that by virtue of the 
words of consecration — in order that these words may really 
be pronounced with truth — the bread must cease to exist : — - 
and, from what has been said, it is clear, that this is all that 
we are to understand by the word Transubstantiation. 
" Formal conversion" says Vasquez,* is a term expressive 
of that relation, which subsists between the substance that 
ceases to exist, and that substance, which causes it to cease 
to exist in the sacrament ; a destruction, which is absolutely 
necessary, that the words of consecration may be truly veri- 
fied ; — nor can this phrase be considered as anything more 
than an expression of this relation, — and an expression too 
which must not be taken as defining the nature of this rela- 
tion, but rather as a conventional term, which, taken literal- 
ly, goes beyond the nature of the relation, that subsists be- 
tween the two substances mentioned above." At all events, 
it is quite certain, that a person, to be a Catholir., need be- 
lieve nothing more than the above, on the subject of Tran- 
substantiation, whether the opinions of the schoolmen, which 
I have rejected as false, in the preceding observations, be 
really so, or not. 

Now I would ask a person, who believes that the body 
of Christ is really present in the Eucharistic bread, or sym- 
bols, — what difficulty he can possibly have in believing Tran- 
substantiation, as I have explained it ? Surely he can have 
none whatever 

5 At all events, the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as it 
is explained above, is not a just ground for separation : and 
any one that admits, as Daille does, that the belief of the 
presence of Christ's bodj', carries with it no venom, and is 
not prejudicial to the piety of, or the salvation of him that 
believes it, — must also necessarily allow, that neither does 
the doctrine of Transubstantiation carry with it any venom, 
and that it is not prejudicial to piety, or to the salvation of 

* Vasquez, Disp. 181. cap. J 2. 
Q 



114 

him that believes it. — Since the doctrine of Transubstantia- 
tion adds nothing to that of the real presence of Christ, but 
the belief that the bread ceases to exist ; which latter effect 
cannot be considered, as prejudicial to piety, and salvation, 
by any reasonable man, who can bring himself to admit, that 
the doctrine of a real presence has not these effects. It fol- 
lows, therefore, from a principle laid down by Daille, and 
bh I have already quoted, — that he is neither a good 
Christian, nor deserving of toleration as a citizen, nor even is 
he a man of common sense, who refuses to believe the doctrine 
of Transubstantiation, as explained in this section. 

§13. 

On the adoration of the Eucharist. 
There is no express declaration, in Pope Pius's creed, 
that the adoration of the Eucharist follows, as a necessary 
consequence, from the belief of the real presence of Christ 
under the appearances of bread and wine. But by the 
Council of Trent* it is decreed, that " If any one shall say, 
that Christ ought not to be adored, in the holy sacrament of 
the Eucharist, with the outward worship of Latria, — and that, 
consequently, neither ought he to be honoured, in this sacra- 
ment, with a particular festival , nor the sacrament be 
solemnly carried in procession, according to the praisewor- 
thy, and universal practice of the church ; nor publicly ex- 
posed to the people to be adored ; and that they who adore 
Christ in this sacrament, are idolaters, let him be anathema." 
Also, after declaring in the 3rd chapter, that the true body 
and blood of Christ, are together with his soul and divinity, 
present under the appearance of bread and wine ; — and es- 
tablishing, in the 4th chapter, the doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation, the council draws this inference, in the 5th, and 
teaches that " there can be no doubt, that all the faithful, 
following in this, the practice which has always been ob- 
served in the Catholic Church, ought, in venerating the holy 
sacrament, to worship it witlx the same adoration of Latria 
that belongs to the true God. For this sacrament is not the 
less deserving of this adoration, because it was instituted by 

*Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. can. 6. 



115 

Christ our Lord that it might be received, believing, as we 
do, that that same God is present, in this sacrament, whom 
the eternal Father introduced into the world by saying let all 
the angels of God adore him •* — * the same God before whom 
the magi falling down adored; — whom the apostles also, ac- 
cording to the sacred text, adored in Galilee." As this is 
proposed by a General Council, it is of Faith : but it also 
follows, on the other hand, that nothing but this is of Faith, 
on this point. 

1. The opinion which T shall subjoin, is not of Faith, 
in fact, it is a mere and shameful calumny of Daille, and 
one too of the most aggravated kind, and deserving of severer 
reprehension, because it is ascribed to us by this writer, not 
merely as an article of Faith, but is assigned, as one of the 
grounds, on which the separation from our church, and the 
disturbances both in Church and State, that were consequent 
on that event, may be justified. It is contained in the fol- 
lowing passage of his apology, to which Mestrezat, Drelin- 
court, and Aubertin also attached their names. " The real 
question is not," says he,f " and this I have stated again, 
and again, in my writings, and in every part of them, in the 
title-page — the beginning, the middle, and the end of them, — 
the real question between us is not, whether the body of 
Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist, but whether we are 
to adore the Eucharist itself. There is a wide difference, 
between these two ways of adoration. In adoring the Eu- 
charist, the act of worship is directed to that particular, and 
definite object, which subsists in the spot, towards which 
the act of worship is referred, — directed, that is, to the sub- 
stance which is veiled under the accidents of bread and wine ; 
so that, supposing that this substance happen to be a mere 
created object, the act of adoration is, in this case, neces- 
sarily an unlawful creature- worship — one in fine that is for- 
bidden by the Almighty. On the other hand, by directing 
our adoration to the body of Christ, in the Eucharist, — if his 
body should happen not to be present there, the worship 
would, in this case, be futile, and useless, but no more ; it 
would then be directed, if I may be allowed the expression, 

* Ps. xcvi. 8. Hebr. i. 6. f Daille in Apol. cap. 9 Ep. ad Mongl. 



ue 

to nothing ; the error consisting not, in paying divine wor- 
ship to an object incapable of it,— which I have shewn to be 
the case in the other system, — but merely in this, that an ob- 
ject really adorable is erroneously thought to be present, 
and subsistent, where it really is not." In these words 
Daille ascribes to us, as an article of our Faith, an opi- 
nion which we in reality reprobate and abhor ; asserting this 
second kind of adoration to be different from the first, and 
that we admit two objects of adoration, under the Eucharistic 
accidents. Now that such is not our belief is clear, 1. 
Because no such doctrine is propounded by the Council 
of Trent. 2. Because there is not one amongst all our 
writers, that has ever hinted at such a system, as that as- 
cribed to us by Daille — a system which admits of two objects 
of adoration in the Eucharist, — by which an act of adoration, 
besides that which is referred to Christ, may be directed to a 
particular, and definite object, which subsists in the spot, 
towards which the act of worship is referred, — directed, that 
is, to the substance, which is veiled under the accidents of 
bread and wine. Now I would ask again, whether one sin - 
gle Catholic writer can be mentioned that ever thought of 
this system? Undoubtedly not: — and even if there were 
one such, the opinion would not be the less horrible. It 
is not true, that we adore indiscriminately, and indefinite- 
ly, whatever substance happens to be contained under the ap- 
pearances of bread and wine : we adore Christ only, whom 
we believe to be there present ; — Daille, consequently, is con- 
victed as a calumniator. 3 It may be proved also, that this 
system is no article of our Faith, from the following answer 
given by the faculty of Theology of the University of Paris. 
*.... The learned Doctors of the faculty of Paris, are re- 
quested to deliver their opinion, whether the fact, stated in 
the 63rd page of Monsieur Daille's Letter, to M. Monglat, 
dated 1634, be true, or false." The following is the answer. 
" We, the undersigned Doctors of Divinity of the faculty of 
Paris, in answer to the above question, declare, that the fact 
referred to is false, and wrongfully ascribed to the Catholic 
Church ; which, in paying adoration to the Holy Eucharist, 
bas no design whatever to adore any other substance, veiled 
under the accidents of bread and wine, besides Jesus Christ ; 



117 

and the Church anathematizes all, who should pretend to 
adore, in the Eucharist, any other substance whatsoever. It 
is a groundless idea, of the same writer's, to fancy, that there 
is more danger of idolatry, in the adoration of the Eucharist, 
as practised by the Catholic Church, than in the Lutheran 
system ; since he supposes the Catholic Church to direct her 
worship to an object to which adoration is not due, and that 
it is thereby, consequently, an unlawful, and prohibited act 
of worship : whilst the truth is, that the only object that the 
Catholic adores in the Eucharist, is Jesus Christ ; to whom 
adoration belongs, wherever he may be present, and, there- 
fore, in the Eucharist, in which the Catholic Church does 
not acknowledge, or recognize, after the consecration, any 
other substance to exist, besides Jesus Christ. And if, from 
a want of proper attention, or from any other cause, uncon- 
secrated bread were exposed to the veneration of the faithful, 
instead of the Holy Eucharist, the Catholic has no intention 
to adore, nor does he think that he does, or is allowed to a- 
dore, the mere bread : — he has no wish to adore the bread, 
nor any other similar substance, his adoration is directed 
solely to our Lord Jesus Christ. Given this 18th April, 
1643." This declaration is signed in the original, by Ja. 
Hennequin, Emerez, Perreret, du Fresne, de Mince, Chapel - 
as, M. Cantat, Brousse, Judas, A. de Mautry. Now, is 
there any one, even amongst those who have separated from 
our Church, that can listen with patience to such a calumny 
as this— imputed to us by the very ministers of Religion, as an 
article of Faith; who foment, by these falsehoods, a division 
most injurious to the church, and most prejudicial to the 
salvation of souls, and to the good of the State. 

2. It is another calumny of this writer,* of a similar 
stamp too with the preceding, to assert that, besides adoring 
Christ under the appearances of bread and wine, we adore the 
sacrament with the sovereign and absolute worshif of Latria. 
Now, I ask, what Catholic pretends, that two acts of su- 
preme adoration are due, — one to Christ present in the Eu- 
charist, and the other to the Eucharist itself, that is to say, 
to the other substance, which, according to Daille, we say 

* Daille in Apol. pag. 45, 46, 66, 



118 

exists there? When Catholics say, that they adore the sa- 
crament with a sovereign and absolute worship, they mean, 
by these words, to be understood to say, that they adore 
Christ present in the sacrament, under the Eucharistic ap- 
pearances ; Catholics often use these terms, u the sacrament, 
the matter of the sacrament," as conventionally equivalent 
to that of Christ present under the sacramental appearances ; 
on account of his being present there as the cause of grace. 
But God forbid that we should ever think of adoring the sa- 
crament, in any other sense, with supreme and absolute wor- 
ship; — to do so, would be idolatry. As to the respect, which 
is to be shewn to the Eucharistic symbols, considered as dis- 
tinct from the body of Christ, of this I shall have occasion to 
speak later ; — but I will observe that all Catholics are agreed 
that this is a mere relative, and not an absolute or sovereign 
respect. Here then is another instance, not very unlike the 
preceding, of palpable attempt to impose upon the public. 

3. It is not of Faith, indeed it is not true, that the 
Council of Trent,* as Daille pretends, has denned that there 
are in the sacrament two distinct objects of our adoration, — 
one in the person of Christ, — and the other in the Eucharist. 
1. Because the Council of Trent does not mention two. 2. 
Vasquez,f justly observes, that * when the council speaks 
of the adoration of the Eucharist, and affirms that the wor- 
ship of Latria, which belongs to the one true God, is the spe- 
cies of adoration with which this sacrament is to be vene- 
rated; it is to be understood as speaking of Christ con- 
tained under the accidents, or as speaking of the accidents 
considered as containing under them the body of Christ : it 
being the opinion, and a just opinion, of many Theologians 
that Christ is essentially connected with the very nature and 
essence of the sacrament ; indeed, as Christ is what is con- 
tained in the sacrament, he is on this account called a sacra- 
ment; or, at all events, the accidents are called a sacrament, 
in no other sense, than in as much as the body and blood of 
Christ are really present under them. 3. It may also he 
proved from the following words of the Council that " in 
venerating the holy sacrament, we ought to worship it with 

* Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 5. f Vasquez; disp. 109. c. 3. 



119 

the same adoration of Latria, that belongs to the true God : " 
— now it is beyond dispute, that this worship of Latria is ab- 
solute and supreme ; and it is equally certain, that an abso- 
lute and supreme worship belongs not to the species* but to 
Christ only. 4. From the observations subjoined by the 
Council, my explanation may also be established : — the coun- 
cil says, that the same worship is required from us, that was 
rendered by the Magi, who fell down and adored, &c. Now 
this worship, every one must admit, was neither more nor 
less, than the absolute adoration of Christ. 5. The Council 
argues to the nature of this worship, from the real presence 
of Christ, to whom adoration belongs, wherever he may be 
present ; — there is consequently no mention whatever, in this 
passage of the Council, of the adoration of the accidents. 
When, therefore, the Council says, that the absolute worship 
of Latria belongs to the sacrament, by the word sacrament 
is meant Christ under the sacramental accidents ; which is 
nothing uncommon, as this term sacrament is not unfrequent- 
ly used to denominate Christ present under the Eucharistic 
accidents ; he being present there, as I have already observ- 
ed, as an efficacious sign of the grace that he bestows. No 
Catholic, at all events, will pretend that the explanation, 
which is here given, of the words of the Council, is opposed 
to the faith of our Church; it follows, therefore, at least, that 
it is false to say, that it is of faith, that two distinct objects 
of adoration, — Christ, and the sacrament, considered as two 
objects, — are specified by the Council of Trent. The same 
object is specified by the Council under different names. 

4. As to the veneration which is to be paid to the Eu- 
charistic accidents, as this is undoubtedly nothing more 
than an inferior and relative, and not, by any means, an ab- 
solute respect, there can be no need of my dwelling at any 
length on the explanation of it. Daille says nothing about 
it, and in fact, there is no particular difficulty whatever in 
the case. Vasquez* spends some time in proving, that " we 
are to proceed on the same principles in venerating the holy 
sacrament of the Eucharist, that we follow in honouring 
images : from which it follows that the body of Christ, being 

* Vasquez, part. 3 disp. 118. cap. 12. 



120 

present in the Eucharist, claims the adoration of Latria. " 
" But," he subjoins, " as to the nature of the respect, and 
veneration which belongs to the Eucharistic appearances, 
the schoolmen do not agree ; of course, to be consistent, 
each one will adopt the same principles, that he embraces 
on the nature of the honor that is due to the images of 
Christ ; as the formal and ultimate object of veneration is in 
both cases the same, namely, Jesus Christ. The feeling of 
respect may not be so ardent, when directed to the image of 
Christ, as when referred to the sacrament, because Christ 
in the sacrament is really present ; and for this reason we 
shew in our outward behaviour a greater degree of reverence 
towards Christ in the sacrament, than towards any image 
that merely represents him." " The sacramental accidents," 
says the same writer,* f are mere inanimate modes, and are 
of themselves incapable of receiving any kind of respect, or 
honour, which is only due to them, on account of their close 
connexion with Christ, who is really present under these 
outward appearances. The act of adoration must not, 
therefore, stop at these exterior accidents, but must proceed 
to what is contained under them : — it is not the accidents, 
but Christ present under these accidents, that we adore. 
The reader would do well to reperuse my remark, on 
the respect due to images which he may apply, without 
any limitation whatever, to the subject before us. 
As I taught in that section, that it is not of Faith that 
images — not even the images of Christ — are to be adored, 
and much less adored with the worship of Latria : — that, in 
fact, it is not of Faith, that even a religious honour is due to 
them, much less an honour corresponding to that, which be- 
longs to the prototype whom they represent ; so in like man- 
ner, I say that it is not of Faith, that the sacramental acci- 
dents are to be adored, much less adored with the worship of 
Latria ; that it is not of Faith, that a religious honor is due 
to them, much less, consequently, the same worship that be- 
longs to Christ : — and, as the word sacrament is often used 
for nothing more than the sacramental symbols, signs, and 
accidents, I apply the same observations to this word when 
used in this manner. 

* Vasquez, 1. c. 



121 

In fact, a Catholic has never any intention to adore the 
accidental modes, which he sees, as the whiteness or round- 
ness of the consecrated: particles ;— his adoration is directed 
to Christ only, whom indeed his eyes see not, but whom Faith 
tells him to be really present under these outward appear- 
ances ; and, as we respect not only the king, but even his 
dress, and robes ; so does our veneration extend to the Eu- 
charistic accidents, under which Christ is really present. 
Some moderns think, says Vasquez,* that Gabriel taught that 
the sacrament, that is to say the sacramental species, may by 
synecdoche, be said to be adored — not of course in the 
strict meaning of the word adoration, but merely on account 
of the presence of Christ under them." Vasquez does not 
think that this opinion need be censured. 

5. I select the following observation also, from a variety 
of excellent remarks made by Vasquez. f " From the interi- 
or worship of Latria, which is called adoration, and which 
has the prototype, that is represented, for its immediate ob- 
ject flows a mark of exterior respect, which is usually spoken 
of in ordinary language, as an honour, respect, or adoration 
of the material object to which our interior worship is direct- 
ed, or before which our exterior respect is exhibited, — this 
respect, however, does not stop at the material object, but 
proceeds to the prototype which it represents : whilst, on the 
contrary, the outward expression of praise by which we com- 
mend the excellency of the prototype, — prayer too, and 
sacrifice, are commonly spoken of as addressed to the proto- 
type only, and not to the material objects that represent it ; 
and likewise, we seldom say, that these actions are directed 
to, but rather performed before, these material [representa- 
tions and inanimate objects ; to which acts of respect, of 
course, they never, of themselves, have any claim. Now, I 
am of opinion, that what has been here said of images, may 
be applied with propriety, and upon the very same grounds, 
to the sacramental accidents. I am particular in using the 
words " sacramental accidents," as distinguished from the 
word " sacrament," because as the presence of Christ, accord- 
ing to my explanation given above, essentially enters into 

* Vasquez, 1. c. cap. 12, *f- Disp. 109. cap. 4. 

R 



122 

the full meaning of the latter expression; prayer, religious 
praise, and sacrifice may be said to be directed to the sacra- 
ment, just as we say that the interior worship of Latria, in 
the absolute and unmodified meaning of the words, may be 
paid to it. 

6. In a word, we honour the king, whether clothed in his 
royal robes or not, whether borne in state in his carriage or 
not, with precisely the same kind of respect; we make no 
distinction in our respect in either case ; the honour is one 
and the same. In fact, a courtier, or any one of common 
sense, would laugh at the man, that should be foolish enough 
to honour the king, when divested of his royal robes, or of 
clothes entirely, and should yet refuse to pay him that res- 
pect when dressed, or riding in his carriage. And he would 
undoubtedly be considered as a madman, if he turned rebel, 
or made his escape from the king's palace, for fear of being 
compelled to honour the king on such occasions. The appli- 
cation of this is obvious : — our dissenting brethren are guilty 
of an equal act of folly, and shew an equal want of sense, in 
accusing us of idolatry for adoring the Eucharist; they con- 
sider it, in a word, a detestable act to adore Christ, veiled 
and concealed under the Eucharistic accidents. For we call 
Jesus Christ, when proposed to the adoration of the faithful 
under the Eucharistic species, the Eucharist, or the Sacra- 
ment of the Eucharist. And on this ground, they are guilty 
of an act, which nothing can ever justify, namely, of causing 
a schism, — though they admit* that it is no idolatry if the 
body of Christ be not adored in the Eucharist ; that is to say, 
that it is not idolatrous to adore Christ when present in the 
sacrament, or when considered as present independently of it. 

It is folly indeed, to advance this— as I have shewn the 
Protestant Ministers do, both in their apology, and in their 
letter to Menglat, — f as one of the main reasons for sepa- 
rating from the Roman Catholic Church. Whether naked 
in the crib, or stretched upon the cross, — clothed as on 
earth in his ordinary vesture, or veiled from our sight by the 
expanse of heaven, or by the Eucharistic accidents, to 
Christ ever belongs the same- supreme worship. I have al- 

* Ep. ad Meng. pag. 63. f Pag- 63 « 



123 

ready observed, that when hidden by the Eucharistic acci- 
dents, the term sacrament of the Eucharist is employed, to 
express his presence in this manner, and in this meaning, 
and no other, do we say that the worship of Latria belongs 
to the sacrament. Both parties would afford much mirth 
to a courtier, if they were to argue the question before him, 
applied as above to the dress of the king, and should enter 
into fierce controversy on the nature of the honour due to the 
king's dress, whether on his person, or in his wardrobe. In 
the same way, is it possible not to smile, to see our adver- 
saries, engaged in long and warm debate, about the nature 
of the honor that is due to the sacramental species; which 
may be considered as the robe, or covering in this case ; 
and also examining what respect is due to the sacrament, to 
the species, namely, that contain the body of Christ, con- 
sidered as containing this body — whether Christ veiled in 
this manner may be adored, whether there is not in this 
case a twofold worship, and in addition to this a relative 
honor belonging to the species, the nature of which also re- 
quires to be determined : — 

"Spectatum admissi risum teneatis, amici ?" 

I am also afraid, that the courtier would secretly laugh 
as heartily at us, for involving this plain question in so 
many subtleties : — and I have, I think, some reason for this 
apprehension, — for undoubtedly he would smile, if these in- 
tricate distinctions and discussions were applied to his mas- 
ter's dress, which there can be no difficulty in supposing, 
as the cases are perfectly parallel, and the very same kind 
of distinctions, and disputes might be started, on this appen- 
dage to royalty. 

7. At all events, if to believe that the body of Christ is 
really present under the Eucharistic species, and that his 
body, because considered as present there, may be adored in 
the Eucharist, — carry with it no venom, and be not prejudi- 
cial to the salvation of him that believes this doctrine, and 
adores Christ in conseque?ice of such belief ; — it is impossible 
for any one, in his senses, to assert, that to adore the Eucha- 
rist, or the sacrament, with the sovereign, and absolute 
worship of latria, in the sense and manner already ex- 
plained, — either carries with it any venom, or is prejudicial 



124 

to salvation : — and if not prejudicial to salvation, then it 
follows from a principle several times alluded to, that the 
man, who refuses to adore the sacrament, or the Eucharist, 
is neither a good christian, nor deserving of toleration as a 
citizen, nor even does he shew common sense. 

§14. 
On the Sacrifice of the Mass, 
In our creed we possess, that " In the mass, is offered to 
God, a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living, 
and the dead." And the Council of Trent* declares, that 
" If any one shall say that in the mass, a true, and proper 
sacrifice is not offered to God ; or, that by a sacrifice being 
offered to God, nothing more is meant, than that Christ is 
given to be eaten, let him be anathema." And again, in the third 
canon, it decrees, that * If any one shall say, that the sacri- 
fice of the mass is merely an act of praise, and thanksgiving; 
or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice that was completed 
on the cross, and not a propitiatory sacrifice ; or that it only 
benefits the receiver ; and that it ought not to be offered for the 
living, and the dead, — for their sins, their punishments, satis- 
factions, and other necessities, let|him be anathema." Being 
proposed by a General Council, the above is of Faith, but, on 
the other hand, none if the following propositions are articles 
of our Faith. 

1. It is not of Faith, that the mass, though it is a true, and 
propitiatory, — is also an absolute, and not a relative, and com- 
memorative sacrifice. Neither are the following questions of 
Faith, since even our own writers differ in opinion respecting 
them. This is also undeniably proved to be the case, 1, from 
the Council of Trent having passed no decree on these points ; 
though there were many individuals of great learning present 
at the Council, who where fully aware that conflicting opi- 
nions were advanced, and defended in the schools, on these 
subjects. In the second place, as we learn from Vasquez,f 
the schoolmen, as I observed above, are not agreed in opi- 
nion, on these questions. To prove this, it will be sufficient 
for my purpose to cite the following heads of chapters from 

* Concil.Trid. Sess. 22.can. 1. f Vasquez, Disp. 222. 



125 

that writer.* chap. 19. " The oblation which is made by the 
priest, in a given form of words, nowise appertains to the 
nature, and essence of the sacrifice." chap. 2. " Neither does 
the breaking, or the distribution of the sacrament essentially 
belong to the sacrifice." chap. 3. " There are various opi- 
nions as to the nature of the relation that subsists between 
the reception of the sacrament, and the sacrifice." Chap. 4. 
" However, the sole reception of the sacrament does not con- 
stitute the essence of the sacrifice ; nor is its nature such as 
to be at all adapted to have been instituted by our Saviour, 
for any such purpose. Chap 5. " I propose to prove, that 
the sole consecration of the sacrament constitutes the entire 
essence, and nature of the sacrifice." Chap. (>. "The true 
essence of the sacrifice, though it consist in the consecration, 
still our Theologians are not ageed in their explanations on 
this point." Chap. 7. " From the testimony of the Fathers, 
I propose to prove, that the Consecration of the Sacrament 
constitutes the entire essence of the sacrifice, inasmuch as the 
sacrifice of the cross is represented by that of the altar."— 
Chap. 8. "The essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass may be 
deduced most clearly, from merely considering it, as a repre- 
sentation of the death of Christ." In chapter 9, he replies to 
the objections of his opponents. From this it is clear, that 
there is a variety of opinion, on this subject, amongst our 
own writers ; and that nothing, consequently, has been de- 
fined by the church to be received as of Catholic Faith. The 
following extract, from the eighth chapter referred to above, 
contains a succint statement of Vasquez's own opinion. "In 
signifying and shewing forth the omnipotence of God, as the 
author of life and death, consists the real and precise nature, 
and character of sacrifice ; and, consequently, if there can 
be an oblation, by which, without a true, and real change of the 
thing offered, the Almighty can be denoted and honoured, as 
the author of life and death, — such oblation ought to be styled 
a true and real sacrifice. Such a case presents itself in the 
consecration of the body and blood of Christ ; and this too 
effected by the simple representation of Christ's death, with- 
out any real change or mutation in Christ himself ; and as 

* Vasquez, 1. c. 



126 

such, consequently, is a true and proper sacrifice. For it is 
quite clear, that, by the simple representation of the death of 
Christ in the consecration, God is shewn to be the author of 
life and death, as effectually as by our Saviour's death upon 
the cross : — for the commemoration of this death represents, 
and, as it were, brings before our eyes that tragic scene ; and 
shews the power of God over life and death, in the same man- 
ner, as if Christ were really, at that moment, dying in his 
honour. That a change consequently, takes place in the 
thing offered, is nowise essential to the nature of sacrifice in 
general, there may be a commemorative, though not an abso- 
lute sacrifice without it, since the formal nature of a sacrifice, 
which consists in signifying, not by w r ords, but really and 
effectively, the sovereign power of God over life and death, 
may subsist in a commemorative sacrifice without auy such 
mutation. Still, however, we must carefully observe, that, 
even for a commemorative sacrifice, I mean a real and pro- 
per sacrifice, it is not enough that it be a mere sign, or repre- 
sentation of the death of something, — without containing in 
any manner, the object itself, whose death is represented, — 
for, in this case, it would not be true to say, that the object 
whose death is represented, is-really offered in sacrifice, and 
consequently, there would not be a really commemorative 
sacrifice, but rather a sign, and empty shew of a sacrifice ; 
but it is also necessary, that the object whose death is 
represented, signify and shew forth its own death. To illus- 
trate this by an example. Suppose the opinion of our adver- 
saries to be true, that the body and blood of Christ are not 
really present under the appearances of bread and wine, but 
only the substance of the bread and wine ; it must be grant- 
ed, — and our opponents do grant, — that the death of Christ 
may still, even in this system, be represented ; but Christ 
would not, in this case, be truly and really, but only figura- 
tively offered in sacrifice. In fact, how could that be said to 
be truly and really offered in sacrifice, which [is not really, 
but only by some kind of similitude, and figuratively 
only, the object of the action of the offering Priest. As 
however Christ is really present, under the appearances 
of bread and wine, and the action of the priest in offering, and 
the presence of Christ under, these species, are so closely 



127 

connected, that, in consequence of the peculiar form of con- 
secration, made use of by the priest, Christ represents, by 
means of the accidents of bread and wine, his real and bloody 
death upon the cross, — and points out the Almighty as the 
author of life and death, — in this case though Christ cannot 
be said to be killed, and to die truly, and really, but in figure 
and similitude only, — still it is true to say, that he is truly, 
and really immolated, and offered in sacrifice." With this 
explanation, what difficulty can there be in believing in a 
true, and proper, but still a commemorative, though not an 
absolute sacrifice. 

2. At all events, if it be granted, that the belief in the 
doctrine of the real presence of the body of Christ, under the 
appearances of bread and wine, carries with it no venom, and 
is not prejudicial to the salvation of the person that believes it, 
there surely can be no difficulty in allowing, that a belief in a 
true, and proper, but still commemorative sacrifice, as explain- 
ed above, carries with it no venom, and is not prejudicial 
to salvation. And as a clear consequence of another princi- 
ple admitted by our adversaries, it must be said, that the 
man that refuses to believe in such a sacrifice, is neither a 
good christian, nor deserving of toleration as a citizen, nor 
does he even possess common sense. And yet as I have al- 
ready observed on similar questions, nothing more than the 
above is required to be believed, to be a perfectly orthodox 
Catholic. 

In explanation of the nature of propitiation, or of a pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice, I will subjoin anothor extract, in addition 
to the passage already cited, from the Council of Trent.* 
" Because in this divine sacrifice which is offered up in the 
mass, the same Christ is present and offered, in an unbloody 
manner, who, on the altar of the cross, offered himself in a 
bloody manner — the holy synod teaches, that this sacrifice 
is truly propitiatory ; and that by it, if we approach to God 
with fear and reverence, , truly contrite, and penitent, and 
with an upright heart, and true faith, we shall obtain mercy, 
and find grace in seasonable aid A" For the Almighty, ap- 
peased by the oblation of this sacrifice, and bestowing on 

* Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 2. f Hebr. iv. 16 



128 

us his grace, and the gift of repentance, remits our crimes, 
and sins, though grievous. For it is one and the same vic- 
tim, — the same Christ now offering himself by the ministry 
of the priest, who offered himself on the cross ; the only dif- 
ference being in the manner of offering. By this offering, 
the fruits of that bloody offering are most plentifully received ; 
so far is it from truth, that we hereby derogate in the least 
degree, from it. Wherefore, according to apostolic tradi- 
tion, the mass is duly offered, not only for the benefit of the 
living, for their sins, and the punishment due to them, 
their satisfactions, and other necessities ; but also for those, 
who, though dead in Christ, are not fully cleansed from all 
defilement. " The above being propounded by a General 
Council is of Faith ; but nothing more than this is of faith ; 
so that it is easy to do away at once with the idle invective 
and declamation of our adversaries, against our doctrine of 
propitiation. 

1. It is far from being true, that the sacrifice of the 
mass is propitiatory , m the same manner, as the sacrifice 
of the cross. That of the cross merited our redemption — the 
pardon of sin, and all those graces which are bestowed upon 
us ; and in it was consummated all the merit of Christ, and 
this is the sense, in which this sacrifice is called propitiatory ; 
whilst that of the mass was instituted by Christ, as an instru- 
ment, or means of applying the merit of his passion to our 
souls, — in the same manner as this merit is applied by the 
sacraments, by faith, and by good works in general ; and it 
is, in this sense, that the sacrifice of the mass is called pro- 
pitiatory, just as faith, and other virtues are propitiatory. 
Now what difficulty can there be in believing our doctrine 
on propitiaton, as here explained ? And how can it be pre- 
tended, that this doctrine is derogatory to the propitiatory 
sacrifice, that was offered for us on the cross ? 

2. The fruits of the sacrifice of the mass are produced 
by impetration, and consequently, as Vasquez* justly ob- 
serves, *' The mass is only secondarily, and mediately pro- 
pitiatory, and that by way of impetration." He also proves, 
in the same place, that this sacrifice does not, like the sacra- 

* Vasquez, Disp. 128. cap. 2. 



129 

ment of Penance, immediately, and directly remit even venial* 
much less mortal sin ; nor increase grace in our souls, nor 
augment our justification. These are not its direct, but only 
mediate effects ; it produces them by supplicating the Al- 
mighty to grant such assistance by his grace, that we may be 
cleansed from sin, whether mortal, or venial, and advance in 
justice :— and by begging of God, that he would vouchsafe to 
give us that spirit of penance, and contrition, which may 
wipe away all our sins :" or by procuring for us such other 
holy inclinations, as may cause us to advance in the ways of 
justice. In this manner, namely by impetration, — faith, 
prayer, and other virtuous works are also impetratory — but 
these virtues have this effect, in consequenee of the piety and 
rectitude of the individual that performs them, whilst the sa- 
crifice of the Mass is propitiatory in virtue of the thing offer- 
ed, or of the justice of Christ. As prayer obtains for us ma- 
ny temporal blessings, as health, life, abundant crops, &c. ; 
so, and on a similar principle, arc these effects to be expected, 
from the sacrifice of the Mass. And what objection can any 
one find to a propitiation of this character; or to our hoping 
to obtain these blessings, by way of impetration, by the sa- 
crifice of the Mass? 

3. Experience shews, says Vasquez, * that, on certain 
occasions, though without there being any fixed law, or co- 
venant to that effect, the Sacrifice of the Mass procures for 
us both temporal blessings, and the help of divine grace to 
advance in justice : " and, he adds, in the same place, that 
" it does not always follow as an effect of this sacrifice, that 
sin is remitted, even in the manner explained above ; or that 
we obtain, by virtue of this sacrifice, the other spiritual 
helps, or temporal blessings there mentioned." 

4. It cannot be reasonably denied, says Vasquez, f that 
the remission of the temporal punishment due to the sins of 
the living, is always, and infallibly obtained, as the direct, 
and immediate effect of the oblation of this sacrifice ; and 
that it is, in this sense, propitiatory for the living : because, 
he argues, as this sacrifice has been shewn, from the Council 
of Trent, to be a particular means by which the general ben- 

* Vasquez, Disp. 128, cap. 4. f Vaecmez, 1. e. 

s 



ISO 

efit of the merit of Christ's death, is applied to us, it is clear- 
ly necessary, that some specific fruit be ascribed to its effica- 
cy, as its certain, and infallible effects, dependent, however, 
as in the case of the sacraments, on the disposition of the re- 
ceiver. Now there is much less difficulty in fixing on the re- 
mission of punishment, rather than on anything else, as this 
effect ; because all its other effects are uncertain, and do not 
infallibly follow from the oblation of this sacrifice, as I have 
already shewn from another passage of [this writer's works. 
" It appears then to follow," he continues, " that, in virtue 
of a fixed and unerring rule, the remission of the punishment, 
to which the living may be liable, is, in proportion to each 
one's disposition, the infallible effect of this sacrifice ; and 
that, on this principle also, it may be called a propitiatory 
sacrifice for the living, and the dead." But observe that he 
adds, that this point has not been defined by the Church, It 
is not, therefore, of Faith, that, by the sacrifice of the Mass, 
this temporal punishment is always infallibly remitted, — re- 
mitted, that is to say, in virtue of a fixed and unerring law. 

5. Vasquez * starts the following question : — " Are all 
the effects of this sacrifice, whether in favor of the living, or 
the dead, to be considered as flowing from the very nature, 
and constitution of the action itself, that is to say, do they 
proceed, in the language of the schools ex opere operato ? 
However various the language and expressions of the school- 
men maybe in appearance, they are, in reality, all of the 
same way of thinking, on this point." He then explains the 
opinions of those writers, and observes, that it is one thing 
for a blessing to be granted us in consequence of this sacri- 
fice, ex opere operato, or in virtue of the very nature, and con- 
stitution of the work itself, and another to obtain this bles- 
sing in virtue of a fixed, and unerring law." It is not, there- 
fore, of Faith, that the above effects are produced by the sa- 
crifice of the Mass ex opere operato ; in fact, the Council of 
Trent is silent on this point ; and our writers do not agree in 
their explanations of this scholastic term 

6. The following observations, on the nature of the pro- 
pitiation of this sacrifice, in favor of the dead, are deserving 

* Vasquez, Disp. 229. 



131. 

of notice. I . Vasquez observes,* that " this sacrifice caa 
evidently only be beneficial to the dead, by remitting the 
temporal punishment which may be due to their sins. 2. It 
has been already observed, that some divines are of opinion, 
that the sacrifice of the Mass, particularly when offered for 
the dead, is not of such efficacy as to be infallibly accepted by 
the Almighty ; that it is not, in fact, an action by which the 
souls of the departed faithful can be delivered from their suf- 
ferings, by a fixed and unerring law, in virtue of the very na- 
ture, and constitution of the Mass, or, ex opere operato. Soto, 
Canus, and Corduba, says Vasquez,f assert that the sacri- 
fice of the Mass, though it produces a remission of temporal 
punishment, in favor of the living, and that, too, by a fixed 
and unerring law ; that still it does not produce this effect 
when offered for the dead ; and that it can only be available 
for this object, by way of suffrage, meaning by this expres- 
sion, that the sacrifice of the Mass is only beneficial to the 
dead, in as far as God is pleased to accept it ; and that he 
has entered into no covenant, to remit the pains of these suf- 
fering souls, according to a fixed, and unerring standard. 
These writers, consequently, conceive, that the effect of the 
sacrifice of the Mass is less certain, when the Mass is offer- 
ed for the dead, than when for the living." 

7. It is very far, indeed, from being an article of our 
Faith, that the sacrifice of the Mass is of infinite value. 
Vasquez treats this subject at length. The following is the 
title to one ot his chapters : % " A considerable body of The- 
ologians are of opinion, that the value, and efficacy of the 
sacrifice of the Mass are only finite. 

8. After thus distinguishing what is of Catholic Faith, 
from what is not, what difficulty can there be in believing, 
with the Catholic Church, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is 
propitiatory for the living and the dead ! What a variety of 
opinions are falsely ascribed to us by Protestant ministers, 
as articles of our Faith, with a view, no doubt, of fostering a 
schism and a disunion, on which they depend for their sub- 
sistence ! 

*> Vasquez, Disp. 218. cap. 4. f Vasquez, 1. c. 

$ Vasquez, Disp. 130. cap. 1. 



132 

9. And granting, even, that there may be some difficulty 
in admitting this doctrine, even as I have here explained it, 
still, surely, the man that can admit that a belief in the real 
presence of Christ in the Eucharistic symbols, carries with 
it no venom, and is not prejudicial to the salvation of the in- 
dividual that believes it, must also allow the same of this 
doctrine as here explained. And, it consequently follows, 
from another principle of our adversaries, that whoever re- 
fuses to subscribe to this doctrine, cannot be looked upon as 
a good christian, nor deserving of toleration as a citizen, nor 
even as a man of common sense. 

§15. 
On the Pope — his Primacy, and Authority. 

In our Profession of Faith we merely declare, that we 
" acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Roman 
Church, for the mother, and mistress of all churches : and 
we promise, and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff 
— who is the successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, 
and the Vicar of Jesus Christ." These words are copied 
from the Council of Trent, — * and contain all that has been 
denned by that council, which "conjures all pastors, sedu- 
lously to recommend to all the faithful, everything that has 
been established by the Holy Roman Church —the mother, 
and mistress of all churches ; and to use all their care, to 
cause the faithful to be particular in observing all her regu- 
lations," and in almost every session of the council we 
meet with the following observation : — u in the synod of 
Trent, the three legates of the Apostolic See presiding. " 

The above is more fully denned by the Council of Flo- 
rence. The decree is as follows, * We define that the Holy 
Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over 
all the world ; and that this Roman Pontiff the successor 
of the blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles,— is the true 
Vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church, and the father, 
and teacher of all christians ; and that to him, in the person 
of Peter, was committed, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the full 
power of feeding, directing, and governing the Universal 
Church, according to the manner specified in the acts of 
General Councils, and in the holy canons." 
* Condi. Trtcl. Se?«. 25. 



133 

As this is proposed to our belief by a General Council, it 
is of Faith : but nothing more than this, or anywise differing 
from this is of Faith, because it has not been denned by a 
General Council, and in particular, by that of Florence, at 
which so many Fathers both of the Greek and Latin churches 
were present ; and in which the power of the Pope was dis- 
cussed, with the utmost attention, particularly by the Pre- 
lates of the Greek church. It therefore, follows, 1. That it 
is not of Faith, that when the Roman Pontiff teaches any 
thing, either assisted by his own private council, or by a Pro- 
vincial Synod, even though he address the Universal Church, 
or jas it is termed, speak ex cathedra, — in a word, as long 
as he does not propose a doctrine in a General Council, 
so long he is not the supreme judge of controversies, nor is it 
of Faith that he is infallible : nor would a decree passed un- 
der these circumstances, be of Faith, unless the opinion of 
the church were, from other sources, clearly ascertained to 
have been pronounced in its fav r or. The reason of this is, 
1. That this has not been proposed to our belief, by either 
the Council of Trent, or of Florence, or by any other Gene- 
ral Council ; indeed in the creed, and in the Council of Trent, 
it is said of the Church alone, that to it belongs the right of 
judging of the true sense, and interpretation of the holy scrip- 
tures, 2. Because not one of our writers, not even Bellar 
min, has ever yet pretended that it is an article of our Faith. 
3. Because, on this point, some of our Catholic Theologians 
maintain one thing, and some another, as I have shewn, in 
an early part of this treatise, from Bellarmin,* "Some The- 
ologians/ says he, " think, that the Pope, even speaking as 
the successor of St. Peter, or as Pope, may teach heresy, 
when he takes upon himself to define anything, without the 
concurrence of a General Council; and even be an actual 
and formal Heretic. Gerson, Almain, and several other 
French Theologians have maintained this opinion, which 
was also defended by Alphonsus de Castro, and Pope Adrian 
VI. All these writers placed the infallibility of the church, 
in matters of Faith, not in the Pope, but in the Universal 
Church, or rather, in a General Council." " As the support- 

* Bell. Tom. J. De Rom. Pontif.-Lib.-4. cap. 2. 



134 

ers of this opinion" he continues, " are still tolerated by the 
church \they cannot , strictly speaking, be called heretics" Bel- 
larmin was likely to be a severe judge of such an opinion, 
and he, accordingly, passes th3 following censure on it ; — 
though not strictly speaking Heretical, it still seems to be ab- 
solutely erroneous, and but little removed from Heresy. This 
however, he asserts, without any sufficient reason. It is, on 
the contrary, to be considered as a probable opinion, both 
on account of the weight of authority in its favor,— since 
we have seen, that besides many other learned divines, even 
Adrian VI., before he ascended the Papal throne, maintained 
it ; as also, because nothing has been denned, on this sub- 
ject, by the Council of Trent. In fine, if Bellarmin's argu- 
ments proved anything, they would prove the Pope to be 
infallible, even when he defines anything alone, and un- 
assisted, or merely declares his own opinion to others, even 
to individuals only, and not in answer to the Universal 
Church ; and it wouid follow, that in all these cases, his doc- 
trinal decisions are of Faith : yet Bellarmin himself grants 
that this cannot be asserted of the Pope, and admits that he 
may err on such occasions, and that this has even actually 
happened, as I have already observed. The testimony and 
evidence, adduced by Bellarmin, is general, and without 
limitation, even taking it on his own shewing, and statement ; 
and consequently, if it proves anything, it is against himself. 
But, perhaps, some one will ask me what, in my state- 
ment, is really the most probable opinion ? To such a one 
I should say, that this question is foreign to my present pur- 
pose, and that, consequently, a direct reply cannot be ex- 
pected from me. I speak here as a Dogmatical Theologian, 
and not as a scholastic. As the church proposes nothing 
to be believed on this subject, neither ought I,* — nor need 
those who differ from us in religion, know anything about 
this question, to become members of the Catholic Church. 
Whether they purposely withdraw their attention from this 
point, or are really ignorant of it, it is no hinderance to their 
becoming orthodox Catholics. But not to leave anything 
doubtful on this subject, I will observe that every one is 
perfectly at liberty, without any prejudice to his Faith, to 
embrace which ever opinion best pleases him, since both are 



135 



probable. However, be this as it may, whatever emanates 
from a See of so pre-eminent a character, is most undoubt- 
edly, to be received with the greatest respect. But I have 
already treated of this subject, at considerable length. 

2. It is not of Faith, that the Pope is superior to a Gene- 
ral Council, or the Universal Church considered as separated 
from its visible head ; neither is it of Faith, on the other 
hand, that either a General Council or the Universal Churchy 
considered as separated from its visible head, is superior to 
the Pope. This position is perfectly true, in whatever terms 
it may be proposed, provided it be but fairly and properly 
stated. It is proved, because it has not been defined to be 
an article of Catholic Faith, either by the Council of Trent 
or of Florence, or by any other (General Council. 2. Bellar- 
min himself, as 1 have already shewn, grants this : " Those," 
says he, who deny that the Pope is above a General Coun- 
cil, and the Universal Church, so as to acknowledge no pow- 
er on earth as superior to his own, are not, strictly speaking, 
heretics ; — and he also admits, that it is at least doubtful 
whether the Council of Lateran defined the point denied by 
these divines, expressly and undefinably as an Article of Ca- 
tholic Faith. This position may also be more fully proved, 
and better understood, by observing that our divines, as Bel- 
larmin notices,* are not agreed in^opim'on on this question ; 
which alone, is a sufficient proof, that nothing has hitherto 
been proposed by the church on this subject, to be believed 
as an article of Catholic Faith. Those who have strayed 
from the true church, are only required to subscribe what has 
been actually defined. Bellarmin gives the following state- 
ment of the opinions of the divines on this question. "There 
are," says he,f "three opinions on this point, all defended by 
Catholic writers. The first is, that a General Council is su- 
perior to the Pope ; an opinion which was maintained by the 
Cardinal of Cambray, Gerson, Almain, de Cusa, Abulensis, 
Panormitanus, and his teacher, the Cardinal of Florence. — 
It is, however, necessary to observe, in order perfectly to un- 
derstand the opinion of these writers, that their assertion 
restsr on these two grounds : that the Pope is not, strictly 

* Bellarm. Tom. 1. De Concil. Lib, 2cap. 14. .f Bellarm. 1. c. 



136 

speaking, the head of the assembled church, — a position 
which is explained in two different meanings, by heretical and 
orthodox writers. The former mean by this to assert, that 
the Pope is, in no sense, the head of the Universal Church, 
and that he is merely the bishop of his own particular dio- 
cese, or, at most the Patriarch of the West. Whilst anoth- 
er body of writers who are not heretics, do not pretend to 
deny by this assertion, that the Pope is the head and 
pastor of all and every one of the faithful, and of every indi- 
vidual church, considered as a separate establishment ; but 
they do deny that he is the head of the universal church, as- 
sembled in a General Council. For then, say they, the church 
assurnes r -as it were, the form of a single body, and all the 
power that was before scattered amongst a variety of distinct 
members, is united in that one body. So that, in this sys- 
tem, to compare the Pope to the rest of the faithful, consi- 
dered as private individuals ; is the same as comparing the 
most valuable and noble of the members of the body, to one 
of minor importance; whilst to compare the Pope with a 
General Council is to compare a part with its whole — the 
less, consequently, with the greater. And if it be said that a 
General Council, without the Pope, is not a perfect whole, 
but is a headless trunk, they will answer, that the supreme 
power of the church is radically as well in the council, asj in 
the Pope ; and that it exists in the former in a prominent de- 
cree, and in a more direct and permanent manner. Christ,, 
they assert, gave to the church the direct and full power of 
binding and losing, and as the church will remain all days to 
the end of the world, this power ever continues to be a per- 
manent and perpetual prerogative of the church. But, as 
the church cannot always, and at all times, be assembled in 
a General Council, and cannot, consequently, always exer- 
cise this power by its own direct agency, a chief bishop, or a 
Pope, was appointed by Jesus Christ, that, as a general and 
usual rule, the measures deemed necessary for the church be 
settled by his instrumentality and means ; and that the Pope 
was, on this account, entrusted with supreme power, which, 
however, he is always to exercise in the name of the church. 
These writers, however, differ, in the details of this opinion. 
Some admit that this power is vested formally and subject- 



137 

ively, in the Pope, and in the church objectively, inasmuch as 
the object, or end for which this power was established, is 
the good of the church, — also directively, since it belongs to 
the church to direct and guide the Pope, the church, and not 
the Pope, being infallible ; supp lenient arily, since in case of 
the natural or civil death of the Pope, it is the church that 
then supplies his place, and performs the usual duties of the 
papal office. Others, however/are of opinion that this power 
informally and subjectively vested in the church, and only 
instrumentally , and subordinately in the Pope. They are 
unanimous in asserting that this power is vested immediately 
and directly in the church ; and that, consequently, in case 
the Pope die, or is deposed, or refuses to be present at a 
council, such council does not thereby become an imperfect 
body, but is still perfect in all its parts, and enjoys a su- 
preme authority, even that also which was before in the 
Pope : can pronounce doctrines to be Articles of Faith, enact 
laws, and grant Indulgences, &c. And they conclude, that 
consequently, the power of a council is superior to that of a 
Pope ; that the council can sit in judgment upon him, and 
punish him ; and that to ask whether the Pope is superior to 
a council, is to ask whether a part is greater than the whole. 
Finally, they consider that the position of the Pope in the 
church, is the same as that of the Doge in the Venetian re- 
public ; or of a general of an order in relation to the religion 
of his body. The Doge, it is admitted, is superior to any in- 
dividual magistrate, senator, or citizen of Venice ; but is not 
superior to the whole senate assembled ; and in case of the 
demise of the Doge, the whole power of the state, even that 
which was vested in the Doge, is centered in the senate.— 
Or, as the general of an order is superior to any individual 
whether a simple religious prior, or provincial of the body, 
but not to a general congregation, which he is bound to obey, 
and has no power to govern. The second opinion is defended 
by a body of Jurists. These writers teach that the Pope is 
indeed superior to a General Council, and that there is no 
power which can sit in judgment upon him, unless he be him- 
self willing to submit to its jurisdiction, and they maintain 
that he can do this, and grant this tribunal a power over him, 
and that when he has once done this, he is obliged to acqui- 

T 



138 

esce in the decision of the council, though the council even 
proceed to depose him. But the third, and last opinion, may 
almost be called the common opinion of our divines. This 
teaches that the Pope is superior to a General Council, and 
so far superior, that he cannot, even if he wish, subject him- 
self to its sentence, at least, to a sentence which implies a 
force and power in the council to bind bim. This opinion 
is maintained by Turrecremata, Cajetan, Turrianus, Ferra- 
ri, Nicholas Sanders, &c." Thus far Bellarmin. Conse- 
quently, from the very existence of this variety of opinion, 
it clearly follows, that nothing has, as yet been proposed to 
our belief on this point, as an article of Catholic Faith. In 
fact, we have seen, in the above extract, that, in defending 
their own opinion, none of these writers pretend to accuse 
the supporters of a contrary sentiment of heresy. "This 
question," says Bellarmin,* "wasfirst started when the coun- 
cils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, were convened. The fa- 
thers of these councils began to ask whether they were under 
any obligation of yielding to the Pope, or whether the [Pope 
ought not rather to yield to them, — that is, to a Gene- 
ral Council. At this period, many embraced the opini- 
on, that a council is superior to the Pope ; and this ques- 
tion has continued to be agitated to this day. 2. That 
the three opinions mentioned above, are all — e^en the 
the first — probable; and that, consequently, each one is even 
now, at perfect liberty to embrace either of the three, even 
the first, without exposing himself to any kind of censure, 
may be proved, 1. from the authority of the writers that 
support this first opinion, who are men of great weight, and 
learning, such as Gerson, Almain, &c. 2. When the evi- 
dence in favor of this third opinion, even as brought for- 
ward by Bellarmin, is considered, and weighed, it certainly 
seems, even on its own intrinsic merits, to have its probabi- 
lity, " Indeed," as Vasquez justly observes,f " when we 
reflect that the writers, that maintain a contrary opinion, 
have read, and weighed the evidence and arguments adduced 
in proof of this third opinion without being convinced by 

* Bellarm. De Concil. Lib. 2. cap. 13. 
f Vasquez, 1. 2. disp. 62. cap. 4. 



139 



them, and have given even a kind of answer to them ; we 
must necessarily allow that the first is still a probable opi- 
nion." 3. The illustration drawn from the example of a 
General of an order is plain, and very much to the point ; 
and it is of no real importance to the question, from what- 
ever source, we believe that the Pope derives his power as 
its efficient cause : whatever this efficient cause may be, it 
cannot change the essential, and formal relation that subsists 
between the head, and the rest of the body. 4. Nor has 
Bellarmin advanced one single argument that cannot be 
easily answered. There is not a single passage from the 
General Councils, — not even that quoted from the last Coun - 
cil of Lateran, — not one single text of the Fathers, that can 
be said to be opposed in direct, and .express terms to the 
first opinion. A person need only read these authorities 
even as quoted by Bellarmin ; to convince himself at once of 
this. All, and every one of these passages prove what we 
all admit is an article of Faith, and has been expressly de- 
fined by the Council of Florence, that the Pope is the head of 
the church. This they prove, and nothing more. They do 
not even go so far as to condemn, any one of the principles 
on which the first opinion is grounded ; unless we choose to 
admit the consequences which Bellarmin draws from them, — 
consequences which as they are not deduced by the General 
Councils, or by the Fathers themselves, each one is at liberty 
to deny. The real fact is, that none of the councils, or Fa- 
thers have ever discussed these refined, and subtle questions. 
5. The very silence of the Councils of Florence, and Trent, 
on this subject, though the Bishops and Theologians present 
at these councils were fully aware of the difficulties that 
surrounded it, seems of itself a positive proof that this first 
opinion must still be considered as probable. If not, why 
after the many disputes that had arisen on this very point, 
in the Councils of Constance, and Basil, did the Fathers of 
Trent and Florence, still preserve so profound a silence ? 
There is evidently no sufficient ground for Bellarmin's decla- 
ration, that it is impossible to excuse those who defend the 
first opinion, from being guilty of great rashness ; and that 
the contrary opinion is so certain, as almost to be an article, 
of our Faith. This, his censure, deserves rather itself to be 



140 

censured, and condemned, — venturing as he does to condemn 
so severely, writers of such acknowledged authority, as he 
himself tells us have supported this opinion, — as the Cardi- 
nal of Cambray, Almain, &c. ; besides all the Fathers of the 
Councils of Constance, and Basil, even considering them in 
no other character than that of so many private Divines. 
Especially when, as we have seen, no decree has been pro- 
mulgated by a General Council, since the tenets of these 
two councils, in opposition to their declaration. The Coun- 
cil of Constance declares that a synod, constituting a Gene- 
ral Council, and representing the Universal Church militant, 
possesses an authority which it draws immediately from 
Christ, to which every one of whatever state, or dignity, 
though even he be the Pope, is bound to submit, in those 
things which appertain to Faith, the extirpation of schism, 
and the general reformation of the church of God, in its head, 
and members." The Council of Basil made a similar decla- 
ration. Is not the authority of the assembled prelates of 
Constance, and Basil, sufficient to render this opinion pro- 
bable ? Vasquez, and indeed almost the whole body of Theo- 
logians tell us, that an opinion is called probable, and is 
really such, if it be but defended, and considered probable by 
writers of discretion, and learning. 

If any should wish to know which of these opinions 
seems to me the most probable, I would refer him to my ans- 
wer to a similar question, — namely, the Infallibility of. the 
Pope. I shall make no further observations, on either of 
these subjects. 

2. Much less is it an article of our Faith, that the Pope 
has any indirect power over temporal matters ; that is to say, 
that it is not of Faith, that the Pope, as the successor of St. 
Peter, or as Pope, though he have no power purely temporal, 
still he has a supreme power to dispose of the temporalities of 
all the members of the Christian Religion, for the purpose of 
causing some spiritual good ; and that he can, consequently , as 
the supreme spiritual prince, make what alterations he pleases 
inStates, depose monarchs, and place others on their thrones ; 
abrogate laws passed by the highest powers in the State, and 
erect others, if he deem any of these measures necessary for 
the salvation of souls. This is proved, 1, because nothing of 



141 

the above has been proposed to the belief of the Church, by 
our creed, by the Council of Trent, or by any other General 
Council. 2. Not one of our writers, not even Bellarmin, as- 
serts, that this is of Faith. 3. It is evident, that neither the 
Fathers, nor Councils of the first ages of the Church, were 
aware of any such power being attached to the Papal supre- 
macy. Liberius never seems to have thought of deposing 
Constantius ; nor Demarus, the Emperor Valens ; nor Libe- 
rius, even the Apostate Julian. 4. Let the reader remem- 
be, that not all the practices of the Church, even of the Uni- 
versal Church, are a sufficient ground for an article of Catho- 
lic Faith ; and he would also do well to reperuse my obser- 
vations on this principle, and to apply them to the case be- 
fore us. It is clear, that the practice of certain Popes, in 
comparatively modern times, is not sufficient to establish an 
article of Catholic Faith. To justify the adoption of a par- 
ticular practice, it is enough, that the opinion, on which it is 
founded, be supported by a considerable number of divines, 
and by them considered probable, and appear such to the 
individual,who regulates his practice by it. But it is also evi- 
dent, that opinions may be advanced of quite a contrary cha- 
racter, and still be equally probable. But, after all, it is 
better to say nothing at all on this subject ; especially as, in 
case the Pope were to attempt to exercise this power, there 
would be little need of discussing the abstract, and specula- 
tive question of the power of the Pope ; since the case would 
be more easily met, by examining another element, which 
necessarily enters into the argument, before we can conclude 
that the Pope is to be submitted to ; namely, the monarch that 
it is attempted to depose, might, without at all entering into the 
general question of the Papal power, simply contend that in 
his case, there is no cause sufficient to justify the sentence of 
deposition. It is, in fact, admitted by the writers of all par- 
ties, that the Pope is never to attempt to fulminate this sen- 
tence, unless the case be most urgent, and the cause most 
clearly, and undoubtedly just. So that, in point of fact, the 
least powerful party, — that which has not a superior force to 
back its pretended right, must necessarily yield, perhaps even 
without an attempt to support its claims. And, for my own 
part, I am of opinion, that it is highly blameable in any wri- 



142 



ter, to give a decisive opinion in favor of either side of the 
question, as, by so doing, he merely sows seeds of dissension, 
that may tend to destroy the amity, that subsists between the 
Pope, and the Princes of Christendom. It is also advisable 
for the same, or similar reasons, to pass the two preceding 
questions over in silence. He acts most prudently that fol- 
lows in this, the example given him by the Council of Trent, 
which preserves the most perfect silence on these points : 
following the advice of St. Paul, u not to be more wise than 
it behoveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety." And 
if a protestant wish to know what is our opinion on these 
matters, we cannot do better than reply to him, in the man- 
ner suggested in the above observations. 

§16. 
On the Judge of Controversies, 

In our Professsion of Faith, we have the following decla- 
ration : " I admit the Holy Scriptures, according to that 
sense which our Holy Mother, the Church, has held, and 
does hold ; to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and 
interpretation of the Holy Scriptures ; neither will I take 
nor interpret them otherwise, than according to the unani- 
mous consent of the Fathers." The following is the decree 
of the Council of Trent* on this subject : "The Synod defines, 
that, on questions of faith, and morals appertaining to the 
edification of Christian doctrine^ no one relying on his own 
discretion, pervert the sacred scriptures to his own meaning, 
in opposition to that sense which Holy Mother Church, — to 
which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpreta- 
tion of the Holy Scriptures, — has held, ^r does hold ; ven- 
ture to give an interpretation of the sacred text, contrary to 
the unanimous consent of the Fathers." 

This is all that has been defined by the council, and this 
consequently, — that is, the doctrinal instructions, which this 
passage contains, are to be received as articles of our faith. 
Whilst, on the other hand, it follows, that no other doctrine 
besides this is of faith ; nor are we to pretend to be more wise 
than the council, consequently, 1st. as the council, though 

* Concil. Trid. Sess. 4. f Ephes. iv. 29, 



143 

speaking of the authority of the church, and of the Universal 
Church too, on questions of faith and morals, abstains from 
using the word ' Infallibility,' every Catholic is at liberty to 
do the same. The term is, of itself, exceedingly useful, and 
significative, and may be used with advantage in the schools, 
or in popular instruction, or in sermons ; but it is better 
omitted in all controversy with Protestants. The phrase has 
not been adopted by any council ; nor is it found in the sa- 
cred writings ; what obligation then, are we under to employ 
it, especially as it happens to be considered as objectionable 
by our adversaries. Why render the path to truth more dif- 
ficult, and harden them against the doctrines which we have 
undertaken to prove to them. The term ? Transubstantia- 
tion,' is used by the Council of Trent, and Catholics should, 
in consequence, employ it, and not merely content them- 
selves with believing the doctrine which it expresses. But 
as no such authority can be pleaded in favour of the term 
Infallibility, we had better abstain from it, and not attempt 
to appear more wise, in matters of Catholic doctrine, than 
the Council of Trent. And if a Protestant should ask, what 
he is to think of the term, we may tell him that he may ab- 
stain entirely from it, and that he need not know more on 
this question than the Council of Trent has defined. 

2. However the doctrine which this phrase expresses 
is of Faith, — provided, that nothing more be meant by it, 
than what the Council of Trent has defined ; namely, that 
it belongs to the church to judge, of the true sense of scripture, 
and of all controversies, and that we are to submit to her 
decision, and to admit her interpretation, since the church 
can never err, in consequence of the assistance of the Holy 
Spirit that has been promised to her ;* which Holy Spirit 
cannot deceive her, since it is impossible for God to lie."f 
If the scholastic divine include, under this term, anything 
more than the above, — as is very often the case by an al- 
most imperceptible transaction, — such addition, whether 
absolutely certain as a Theological opinion, or merely proba- 
ble, is not of Faith , it may be suited to the subtilties of the 
schools, but not to the simplicity of the Christian Faith.; 

*St. John, xiv. 16. 26 ; xvi. ,13. t Hebr. vi. 18. 



144 

and, consequently, as such should be confined to the schools, 
and not proposed to the belief of those whom we are 
anxious to bring back to the fold of the Catholic Church. 
And if Protestants ask what they would have to believe as 
Catholics on these points, the obvious answer is, that they 
ought to follow in this the example of the church, and say 
nothing about such questions, which they may be utterly 
unacquainted with, without any prejudice to the purity of 
their Faith. They must be advised not to ivish to be more 
wise,than it behoveth to be wise; but to be wise unto sobriety."* 
They must be told that we are not justified in teaching any 
doctrine in the name of the church, unless the church have 
actually taught that doctrine ; but that whenever he pleased 
to embrace the Catholic religion, we will introduce him, if 
he choose to follow us, into all the subtilties of the schoolmen. 
The subject before us is very nearly, if not quite of the same 
stamp as the following scholastic qurry : Can the predestinate 
be lost, or the reprobate saved? For as no Church, is really 
the Church of Christ, which is not guided by the infallible 
assistance of the Holy Spirit, and as it consequently is infal- 
lible by the virtue of this assistance : so, in like manner, no 
one can be truly called one of the predestinate, except by 
virtue of a real predestination, and therefore, as God cannot 
but bring his determination to have its effects, supposing this 
predestination in his favor, or, in the language of the schools, 
in sensu composite, such a one cannot be damned ; though he 
may be damned, to use again the phraseology of the schools, 
in sensu diviso. So it is with the church, she may err in 
sensu diviso, but this would be to suppose her not to be the 
true church ; as, in the parrallel case, the person if lost must 
be considered, as not being truly of the number of the pre- 
destinate : but it is impossible that she can err in sensu com- 
posito. Now every one must feel that such subtilties as these, 
are quite out of the pale of christian truths ; — and, that, con- 
sequently, the real doctrines of the church, when mixed up, 
and joined to these metaphisical subtilties, are no longer to 
be considered as our pure and unalloyed doctrines, and 
ought, consequently, to be confined to the schools. Let us 

* Rom. xii, 3. 



145 

then confine ourselves to the words of the Council of Treat, 
and propose nothing but what she has defined on this point, 
as an article of Faith. Nothing can be easier than to prove 
our belief on this subject, as long as it merely proposed in 
this manner ; and the Protestant can have but little difficul- 
ty in embracing it. Why then, strew the path to truth with 
thorns and briars, for fear lest it should become too smooth 
and easy '! 

3. It is not of Faith, that neither the Almighty, nor the 
scriptures, are the judge of controversies, and that this is the 
exclusive privilege of the church. On the contrary we are 
free to declare that God is the first and supreme judge, and 
that scripture also is a judge of controversies, and a judge 
too, of greater authority than the church, since the scripture 
contains the word of God, whilst the church only speaks by 
the mouth of man. Such a declaration is calculated to bring 
back, those who have strayed, to the true fold. And that 
this position is true may be proved, 1st, Because neither our 
creed nor the Council of Trent asserts, that this character 
does not belong to the Almighty, or to the scriptures. In 
fact, our Saviour says, in the gospel of St. John,* " the word 
that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last 
day." Suarezf justly observes, that " the Rule of Faith is 
either inanimate or animate ; the former is scripture or tra- 
dition, and the latter, the living voice of the church — a Ge- 
neral Council, or the Pope. So that there are fair rules or 
standards by which to direct our Faith." This he repeats 
again and again, J ascribing indiscriminately to the church, 
and to the word of God or scripture, the right of judging of 
all controversies. In this he differs in no respect from many 
other writers, who follow the example set them by St. Aus- 
tin, and many of the other Fathers 3. It is customary 
enough to say to persons engaged at law, that the law 
will decide their case. Why may we not use similar 
language of the Scriptures? 4. It is one of the re- 
finements of the schools to say, that, as the law is 
the rule, by which the judgment of the judge is guid- 

* St. John, xii. 48. t Suarez, disp. 5, sect. 2. 

+ 1. c. sect. 3,4, 5, 6. 

u 



146 

ed, and that the law itself cannot be strictly speaking 
said to judge, as it is unable to hear the litigants, and as 
each of the contending parties drags it forward to support 
his own pretensions, so it is with scripture. This is ill-suited, 
to the simplicity of Faith ; and our doctrines mixed up with 
these subtilties can no longer be proposed as our genuine 
and unalloyed tenets, but are rather to be classed amongst 
scholastic questions. 

4. It is not of Faith, that the Pope out of a General 
Council, is the chief judge of controversies ; or that he is 
then infallible, on questions of Faith, and morals. This is 
evident both from what I have already shewn, and because 
nothing on the above points has been proposed to our belief 
by our Profession of Faith, or by the Council of Trent. 
Such are the observations which I have thought it proper to 
make on the Rule of Catholic Faith ; having with the aid of 
one principle, discriminated the doctrines of the Catholic 
Church, on all the controversies of the day, from the opinions 
of the schools, and from other popular statements, and errors. 



THE END. 



R. P. STONE, PRINTER, BIRMINGHAM. 



PRINCIPAL ERRATA. 



Page. 


Line. 


10 


14, 


/i/r other, rerto? the 


19 


36, 


. . anyways . . anywise 


20 


3L 


. . reasons . . reason 


24 


lo. 


. . John and Turrecremata . . J 


59 


23, 


before sacrifice, add same of 


63 


•J. 


for eonvertion, read conversion 


70 


20, 


.. find.. bind 


73 


:Z0, 


dele ; before that is 


90 


6, 


for understood, read understand 



ohm a Turrecremata 



t6Ja?9 



"' -■--•' 



>|oog 

SSB[9 




